Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-050 Comp Plan Amend - Denied State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Scott ) I, Kelly Meyer, being duly sworn, as Deputy City Clerk for the City of Prior Lake, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution 00-05 is a true and correct copy of the original as passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake at its January 18, 2000 meeting. Date: /ftaloo , / Kelly Meyer Deputy City CI h:\certify.doc ~llVNESO<i\.~ RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET RESOLUTION 00-05 . MOTION BY: ERICSON SECOND BY: GUNDLACH WHEREAS, Northview Development submitted an application to amend the City of Prior Lake 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation) for the property legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, Enivid First Addition; and That part of Outlot A, Enivid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1 st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 9,1999, for those interested in this request to present their views; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 15,1999, the Prior Lake City Council considered the application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property to the R-HD designation and; r:\c.PJ.\lJ..c11\resojuti\olan\es\2000\OlbOS .doc Jage 1 It>zuu Eag e Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER WHEREAS, the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment along with the staff reports and the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 1999, the City Council scheduled a public hearing on this matter to ensure all persons the opportunity to present their views; and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 18, 2000, for those interested in this request to present their views; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property as R-HD (High Density Residential) is hereby denied based upon the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the Comprehensive Plan designation is in error and that a change is justified. 2. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the current Comprehensive Plan designation of C-CC (Community Commercial) is inappropriate and that it should be changed. 3. The Prior Lake Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on an insufficient supply of commercially-zoned property within the City. This request would reduce the supply of commercially-zoned land in the City by 2.92 acres. The Implementation section of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the creation of additional commercial and industrial zoning districts as a means of enhancing the City tax base. 4. There has not been a material change in the area or conditions affecting the site since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996; however, in the past 18 months, two new commercial developments have been added or contemplated for lots in the immediate area. These include a hardware store on a lot one-half block to the northwest, and the potential construction of a new post office on the site directly across the street from this lot. 5. The applicant relies upon the section of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan which states on page 57 that areas designated C-CC should have a minimum of 10 acres. 6. Commercial designation of the property is not affected by the 10 acre limitation on property in the C- CC designation because this provision applies to the entire district and not to individual parcels within the area so designated. For example, the new hardware store and the potential post office site are both on lots less than 10 acres in size. The entire commercial area, however, exceeds the 10 acre minimum. 7. Although the applicant relies on the Rental Housing Study recently commissioned by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority as justification for a Comprehensive Plan amendment of the subject property to R-HD ( High Density Residential), the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority study on rental housing in Scott County did not indicate there was a severe shortage of land available for multiple family development in the City. r:\council\resoluti\planres\2000\OO-OS .doc Page 2 8. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. Passed and adopted this 18th day of January, 2000. YES NO Mader X Mader Ericson X Ericson Gundlach X Gundlach Petersen Petersen Schenck X Schenck {Seal} r:\council\resoluti\planres\2000\OO-OS .doc Page 3 STAFF REPORTS AND MINUTES City Council Meeting Minutes January 18, 2000 Mayor MADER asked for a moment of silence in honor of Dick Underferth who passed away Friday, January 14th. PRESENTATIONS: Results and Recommendations from Economic Development Authority Business Survey - EDA Commissioner Pete Schenck. SCHENCK: Presented to the Council the EDA's recent business survey project, noting the specific process, as well as the results and accomplishments of the survey. After review of the survey results, the EDA made eight recommendations to the Council including, obtaining a more professional survey every two to three years, continuing the Downtown Redevelopment project to improve the community's image, establishing a single point of contact at City Hall for Prior Lake business persons, developing a business-related newsletter, scheduling regular meetings between the EDA, businesses and Chamber of Commerce, customer-service training for all City employees, review of regulations and enhancement wireless communications, and cleaning-up public rights-of-way and City's general appearance. MADER: Noted that the action is to approve the report. The recommendations from the report will still need to be reviewed by either the City staff, Councilor EDA before implemented. GUNDLACH: Asked how the EDA will now use this information? SCHENCK: Explained that the EDA is concerned that a subsequent survey be conducted to get a better indication of what part of the community is most concerned and why. At this point, the EDA will discuss what direction and which recommendations are appropriate to pursue and in what timeframe. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO ACCEPT THE EDA'S REPORT ON BUSINESS SURVEY RESULTS. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck, and Ericson, the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Resolution 00-05 Denying an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Request by Norlhview Development for the Properly Located at 4520 Tower Avenue. Mayor MADER declared the public hearing open. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the process through which the public hearing will be conducted. RYE: Gave a brief history of the agenda item, the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and the staff's recommendation to approve the R-HD designation. Also advised that a 4/5th vote is required for approval of any action. BRYCE HUEMOELLER (counsel for applicant, Northview Development): Noted the request of the applicant to change the property classification from commercial to high-density residential. Noted several issues facing the applicant including that the CCC designation is inappropriate because the property is adjacent to a school, a residential neighborhood, and a wetland. The property cannot provide the appropriate transition between commercial and residential neighborhoods. This parcel is 2.92 acres and the minimum area for a CCC designation is 10 acres. A high-density residential 3 City Council Meeting Minutes January 18, 2000 designation would meet the criteria of the Compo Plan. Also discussed the development of the post office site nearby. The property has limited commercial use, if any, because it is not visible from Highway 13 and that the customer base has moved to the northern commercial developments in Shakopee and Savage. The existence of a sewer line that divides the property is also an issue in commercial development, but could be worked around if the property was designated high-density residential. Noted that the Scott County HRA study and the recent study by the EDA both find that there is a need for high-density residential housing. The City has a history of aiding zoning and MUSA changes to permit development. In summary, advised that the property does not meet the CCC designation criteria, does not provide transition to adjacent residential uses, is not located on a major collector street, is not 10 acres in size, is separated from other adjacent commercial properties, is not visible from Highway 13 and cannot be used for a viable commercial development due to setbacks and an existing sewer line. MADER: Asked for clarification from the Planning Director if the request by Northview has changed from the previous Council meeting. RYE: Noted that the Council considered this request at a previous meeting which remains a part of the public record on the matter, but the Planning Commission may not have had some of the information. JAMES GUSTON (4543 Pondview Trail): Opposes the re-designation of the property as high-density residential, noting that there are 27 acres in other areas within the City designated for high-density residential development. Also noted the need for commercial development within the City and the traffic impact of a high-density residential development. CLAYTON HARDER (4510 Pondview Trail): Opposed the request. Added that there is already a traffic congestion problem on Toronto Avenue due to the Hollywood Bar and Grill. STEVE POTTER (4498 Pondview Trail): Also opposed the rezoning. Added that it does not appear that the applicant has exhausted all the options for a viable commercial use for the property, especially considering the new post office development. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. SCHENCK: Asked how many Compo Plan amendments the City sends to the Met Council on an annual basis, and what would be an excessive number of amendments? Also asked the significance of the Met Council's review. RYE: Answered that the City submits maybe three requests annually, but the excessiveness of amendments to the adopted Compo Plan is a policy question for the Council. The staff responds based upon the receipt of an application in the same manner. The Met Council really only addresses whether the change will have metropolitan significance, including highway capacity, sewer capacity, regional open space and airports. SCHENCK: Supports the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the amendment. Noted that if he was a resident in the neighborhood, he would like to see some transitional zoning take place, but that the City needs to maintain its commercial class properties for development. ERICSON: Noted that in his opinion the most significant factors are the development of the hardware store in the area as well as the development of the post office site. Both of the projects indicate that the property is viable commercially. Supports the motion to deny the request. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes January 18, 2000 GUNDLACH: Asked for clarification as the post office's rationale for choosing the particular site behind the Hollywood Bar & Grill. Also asked that if the demand for high-density residential can be met under the current Compo Plan designations. BOYLES: The indication is that the post office chose that particular site for its access and retail viability. RYE: Advised that the Compo Plan currently accommodates the need for high-density residential housing. GUNDLACH: Also supports the denial of the request, noting the need for commercial property within the City. SCHENCK: Asked for clarification whether the Compo Plan is an area study rather than a parcel by parcel designation. RYE: Explained that in some cases there may be a parcel designation, but generally areas are designated with little regard to the individual parcel. Staff believes the 10 acre limitation applies to the district designation as a whole and not to individual parcels. The fact that the Compo Plan discourages that designation against low-density housing, it is more a guideline. A zoning designation is specific to a property. PETERSEN: Supports the apartment development because the setback requirement would leave very little room for a viable commercial development. MADER: Supports the resolution to deny the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission under a unanimous decision. No new information has been provided by the applicant. Clarified that the issue of setbacks for the property could be addressed through the variance process once the applicant has a development plan. Also noted that it is unreasonable to suggest that because a property isn't visible from TH13 it can't be a viable commercial property. The reference that commercial property is not needed is also disputable when you consider the Council's past discussions on the need to expand its commercial tax base. Also, the Council has heard the Planning Director indicate that there is enough property within the City zoned for high-density residential development, which would indicate there is not a strong reason to change this property's designation. The access to the property and realignment of the ring road will be factors for this property's development whether its designation is commercial or high-density residential. Believes that the applicant's arguments are not strong enough to warrant a designation change. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-05 DENYING THE REQUEST BY NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY AT 4520 TOWER STREET FROM C-CC TO R-HD. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Schenck and Ericson, Nay by Petersen, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution OO-XX Approving the Conditional Use Permit for Excavation of Sand and Gravel for Ryan Contracting on Property Located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22, Located on McKenna Road. BOYLES: Advised that as of this morning a petition has been submitted to the Environment Quality Board requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed prior to any action by 5 City Council Meeting Minutes January 18, 2000 the Council. In light of the petition, recommended that the Council defer the matter to allow staff to provide a complete report with recommendations for pursuing or not the completion of an EAW at the Feb. 7th regular meeting. MADER: Asked if the Council defers action, does the 60 day clock on the CUP application stop due to the request for an EAW? Also asked if the Council could take action to reject the permit based on other issues? RYE: Clarified that the rules are such that the Council cannot take any final action positive or negative until such time until the EAW is resolved and the 60-day clock would be suspended. Clarified that staff received a fax notification and there may be a question whether that is sufficient notification. If the Council does not receive the original paperwork, a special meeting would need to be set to consider the CUP application. SCHENCK: Believed the appropriate action is to table the item until February 7th, but asked if it would be appropriate to discuss general issues? Both Attorney PACE and Mayor MADER confirmed that there is nothing that would preclude discussion at this time. SCHENCK: Noted several concerns including that the hours of operation be limited to 8am to 5pm weekdays with no operation on weekends. Also expressed concern regarding dust control measures, the process for ensuring dust control, and on-site fueling. PACE: Indicated that Councilmember Schenck's suggestion to define "notification" in the process for ensuring dust control should be addressed in the resolution. TOVAR: Advised that Ryan has provided a dust control plan. The provisions in the resolution are a back-up so that the City maintains some control measures in addition to the Ryan plan. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY SCHENCK, TO DEFER THIS MATTER TO THE FEBRUARY 7TH MEETING PREDICATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK IS RECEIVED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 00-06 Approving the Final Plat and Development Contract for Farrell's 1 st Addition. Mader: Noted that the Final Plat is for a two lot subdivision and will result in the addition of one single family home. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-06 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR FARRELL'S 1ST ADDITION. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution 00-07 Approving a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, Resolution 00-08 Approving the Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat to be known as Deerfield, and Resolution 00-09 Approving the Wetland Replacement Plan for the Plat to be known as Deerfield. 6 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT JANUARY 18, 2000 7A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-XX DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST BY NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER AVENUE History: Northview Development has submitted an application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation for 2.92 acres of vacant land located on the south side of Tower Street between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south ofthe Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early Learning Center. In 1997, this applicant, under the name Stonewood Development, submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property from the C-CC designation to the R-HD designation, and to rezone the property from the then B-3 district to the R-3 district. The City Council considered the request on May 4, 1998, and ultimately denied the request due to the concern about the reduction of available commercial land in the City. This proposal has not changed from the original application. The narrative submitted with the application notes that the developer has not been able to find a commercial use for the site in the past 18 months. A concept plan for the development of this site, identifying a 54-unit apartment building, has been submitted by the applicant. The applicant has also filed an application for a rezoning ofthis property, which will not be considered until the Council makes a decision on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, and the property is rezoned, development ofthe site with a multifamily dwelling will require a conditional use permit. 1620~~~~~~~?~&aIJ:\~2~~.~~:~r?g~~cftZe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fa!rB12) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public hearing on August 9, 1999. After considerable testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission felt the circumstances had not changed appreciably since the earlier request. The development of the new hardware store on Duluth Street north of Tower Street is even a stronger case against the proposed R-HD designation. The proposed Post Office location on the lot across the street also tends to reinforce the designation of this parcel for commercial uses. A copy of the minutes of the August 9, 1999 meeting are attached to this report. This item was originally scheduled for City Council consideration in September. However, at the request of the applicant, the item was deferred until November 15, 1999. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact denying the requested amendment to the Comprehensive plan for consideration on December 20, 1999. A copy ofthe minutes of the November 15, 1999 City Council meeting is attached to this report. Prior to the December 20, 1999 meeting, the attorney for the applicant submitted a letter to the City Council containing additional information that had not been submitted at the public hearing before the Planning Commission. In order to ensure all parties the opportunity to address the Council on all matters pertaining to this application, the Council decided to hold a public hearing on the matter. The applicant has waived the 60 day deadline for action on this item, so timing is not an issue. The minutes of the December 20, 1999, City Council meeting are also attached to this report. Current Circumstances: The total site area involved in this request is 2.92 acres. The site has an elevation change of about 10' from the east to the west boundary. There are also several existing trees on the site, although no tree inventory has been completed. Any development on the site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Access to this site is from Tower Street, which is identified as a minor collector street in the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Sewer and water service can be extended from the existing services located in Tower Street. Adjacent to this property on the north and on the west are vacant land and the Priordale Mall, zoned C-4 (General Business). To the south are single family dwellings zoned R-l. To the east is Pond's Edge Early Learning Center, zoned R-4. The Issues: This is a public hearing, so the Council must accept testimony from anyone interested in this application. Notice of the 1:\99fi1es\99compam\99-0S0\990S0cc2.doc Page 2 public hearing was published in the January 1,2000 edition of the Prior Lake American. Notice was also mailed to owners of property within 500' of the site. The R-HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides for open space and the preservation of the natural elements ofthe site, and with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority recently completed a study on the rental housing in Scott County. This study (attached) identified both existing housing and the future need for rental units. At the time of the study (1998), only 4 of the 368 rental units in Prior Lake were vacant, creating a vacancy rate of 1.4 percent. According to this study, as the growth in Scott County continues to accelerate, the demand for market rate rental units will also increase. The study estimates an additional demand of approximately 190 general occupancy units and 70 senior apartments in the City of Prior Lake between 1998 and 2003. The Prior Lake Economic Development Authority also completed an inventory of the properties within Prior Lake designated for High Density Residential uses (attached). This inventory identified a total of391.7 acres of land available for High Density Residential development. Ofthis total, 26.7 acres are presently zoned R-4 and have municipal services available. Another 30 acres is designated for High Density Residential uses, but is presently zoned C-5 (Business Office Park). The remaining 335 acres is located north of CSAH 42 and is presently outside of the City's MUSA boundary. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which has not been approved by the Metropolitan Council at this time, proposes a floating MUSA concept, which may make some of this land available for development. Approval ofthis request will reduce the amount of commercial land available for development by approximately 3 acres. This site is not conducive to large scale commercial development; however, there may be smaller commercial uses that can be accommodated on the site. Two commercial operations either recently added or contemplated for this area are the True Value Hardware Store and the Post Office. On the other hand, the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map will provide additional land for the development of High Density Residential uses, which will in turn help to satisfy a need for rental housing in the City of Prior Lake. Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan amendment to the R-HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing types and provides for open space and the preservation of the natural elements of 1: \99fi1es\99compam\99-0S0\990S0cc2.doc Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: the site. The R-HD designation is also consistent with the City's Livable Community goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. Furthermore, the studies completed by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Prior Lake Economic Development Authority have indicated a real need for additional higher density rental housing. For this reason, the staff recommends approval ofthis request. The Planning Commission felt the need for commercial land outweighed the need for additional high density residential land, and that it is in the best interest of the City to maintain the existing supply of commercial land for future development. Attached is a letter from the petitioner's attorney, Bryce Huemoeller, reiterating the rationale for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Despite the petitioner's rationale, the Planning Commission also found that the applicant had not provided any additional information to indicate the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of the property is incorrect. The Planning Commission therefore recommended denial of this request. Budget Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this request. Approval ofthis request may facilitate the development of this property, and increase the City tax base. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution OO-XX denying the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R-HD designation as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R- HD designation as recommended by staff. 3. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City Council discussion. The Planning Commission recommends Alternative #1. If the Council agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second to adopt Resolution oo-xx denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this property as R-HD is required. The staff recommends Alternative #2. If the Council agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this property as R-HD is required. A 4/5 vote of the Council is required to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 1: \99files\99compam\99-0S0\990S0cc2.doc RESOLUTION OO-XX RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, Northview Development submitted an application to amend the City of Prior Lake 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation) for the property legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, Enivid First Addition; and That part of Outlot A, Enivid FirstAddition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed In accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 9,1999, for 16200 E~~?Jiet'3~~O}!!8~t~S~)rr8PPa~e~<>Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, those interested in this request to present their views; and on August 9, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and on November 15,1999, the Prior Lake City Council considered the application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property to the R-HD designation and; the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment along with the staff reports and the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings; and on December 20, 1999, the City Council scheduled a public hearing on this matter to ensure all persons the opportunity to present their views; and legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed m accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 18,2000, for those interested in this request to present their views; and the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property as R-HD (High Density Residential) is hereby denied based upon the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the Comprehensive Plan designation is in error and that a change is justified. 2. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the current Comprehensive Plan designation of C-CC (Community Commercial) is inappropriate and that it should be changed. 3. The Prior Lake Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on an insufficient supply of commercially-zoned property within the City. This request would reduce the supply of commercially-zoned land in the City by 2.92 acres. The Implementation section of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the creation of additional commercial and industrial zoning districts as a means of enhancing the City tax base. 4. There has not been a material change in the area or conditions affecting the site since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996. 5. The applicant relies upon the section of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan which states on page 57 that areas designated C-CC should have a minimum of 10 acres. 6. Commercial designation of the property is not affected by the 10 acre limitation on property in the C-CC designation because this provision applies to the entire district and not to individual parcels within the area so designated 7. Changes in land use designations in the area are premature until the final alignment of the so-called Ring Road has been determined. 1:\99files\99compam\99-0S0\rsOOxxcc.doc Page 2 8. The applicant states that the Rental Housing Study recently commissioned by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority justifies the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment of the subject property to R-HD (High Density Residential). 9. The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority study on rental housing in Scott County did not indicate there was a severe shortage of land available for multiple family development in the City. 10. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. Passed and adopted this 18th day ofJanuary, 2000. YES NO Mader Mader Ericson Ericson Gundlach Gundlach Petersen Petersen Schenck Schenck {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake 1:\99files\99compam\99-0S0\rsOOxxcc.doc Page 3 Location of Property 1000 6 ~ I iL TOWER HLl APARThB'IT 500 I o 500 1000 Feet ~ N ~/~M( ::.~. +I.H,H-H I'T n-.fJl.:l~.::l 1 I I - IT~ . . d^ ~\'> ,," ,. 1.1.1,1,T.1ITll: i 2iW,T1l111 ~ I ' ,.fLj '." p_'-'lI' .. ~-~----+ Ai. ;,~~' I ,_""', " ',"" 'r=' ,r~~, ,Il ir<< "",HI" 1L',;l/;;/C~" 'I:fi/lfr {~/~~ ."~~'1t.~+!,,!.ln.I,,!..!..I,,:J;I.. :1.... .."'. .I.I.~"~\~I.I.. ,11,,1.1' ,;~!}T ..,- ...... ~ ~./!?'l1rin, ~'~ .~. .1,,+1.1_11,' ,'1.1. .1"1"1"1"1' "I"!" r' "1"~'"I.'~i.'.I.I. "l" ....... ! . . i! . ',: _I" .TI'I.,.h '!'!'llsl+ + +1'1'1. +1.. -1-. +1. .1. '1' .L+. + - ' . ! f 'I.~ ......~ I .r- . . - ... ., .. ) ,i~I\!~h~:\Hf~e;'~r.l -'.- .,i- ...1, . 'l,"T . 1'1,1-1\1, · ~ ; !~~; ~ --.; "'..... ::- lC 1 i ! i ilil - ._ :1'~nl"I";':.j""I.l'" .. . H':::.1,~"..~~~too<.'.~l - ..-. ~ II~- ."-.'- . i+-ri ,~,~;i~. !M3,J:..~ =-' :ffi- ,." -.. -. .'-.r-I ~IC J:C : /I"~ I. R ~" " u ~' - -= l''. ~ '.. \ . . .E~IDE 'A,S.,J.,LLY . ~.. - . 11..~ . i' ;,. TA>"ES' ,~ --. I ~~r _ ~ " . ";' [W':[,:::, E ~ -~I~_, II-J:.....':'::;J..~..... I ~[~~.ci,..~~.....:~.~ ./'_.. . '+f~i~::. :~lt:::~;==:~.. :.:.:.~::::::::~~tt11 m._ 7-.. ~; ~::~~:;~W:~.. . ,tiffi; E< ,',:):;J: ., ~ \ ' ' ""'~ 1:r' . "",... . .. :"' ....: . · I ?:: ~ ~:.~\,,:j ~:' ~,."~....~ ~~1I1~~~1U~~111~j~11~~~~~~1~j~j~jfj1~1~~j1tl:. \~i' I.; . \ \ TI~/~. :.:.::'::::i:':~f" :.:;; !.. ::/f3:~,L;~~ .,,i. 'r ',~ : r.v ~.;. ~l' ..of .:.~~~. ~ ...- . . ..~. -;:- ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... LZ ,,, "~"... . .. .>:. :. ~ '. . :... I~...I-~ ~ ~"c--.' ~ ~ m::::~'''' ~..~~.~.. . ' -".. ..:~~... ....".:. . t eo- ~' ,",." 'ffi$' .'. . ..:, :.......":'.... i~\~ ~. 2:, '. ,~.~~,.~ -~. It ~_ ", "(.::. <, I.!..... .:;:: ::.}:::::".:.) I ' ~ ::~~G:C+L~ ~~~\~ ~cc .1, g)--~ '-"0 .' :.:;;:., ...~'. ;. "I- ~ ~~. ~ ~&i!i' ,,' ~ '"'-."....: .....-..... ' . ~ . . .~~~:~?;.: . ~,~ lO. '/7;" 'fI '.. " ". l'.:..~.!: . . .Ll . ';a~.'.' ._:JOli; "" '=-:-.' '.':" .. .... I. :;7''''....' ,.,' f()O... r.........:'ti: ...... :?:':.-::.': -- I . ". ) r:- =: i~. '. I .1..' ~. ~.. . ~.. ~ :':'. "'~. .::':' .:.:::~.: . \ ' < "~/.,.___ r\. '.. . . .... ....: .:. .....' : .' ." '. ., ' T .:.... J ~ ..- '.' ';-&1&r'. ... ~:. :..~\.,:,.'V\.\.:.11.8:7) . ~ ...=....... , :..,~31~' _ ~ ,..' , .:,~:? I ~_,... . ~." .-.,Jo.c.tTl. ~ :!..t.!...... . .....-- . . _ .;~s,~.~."UJA.TU_. . . ~Y'!.-....~~..oIilDQ'.. i _ [ 'd:l ...:.:.:J ~, . -.... _u .-. . .~..~.~...:....~...........' . elf 11 II \I I-.j-:i: ~. . -.Ilr:JL.'.' -.. IC PRIOR LAKE 1\ 1. J.,oo'~- I'~ ! I ~ ~u~ i ~ ~~~ ~~ . /"-- - ...'~ -.---.:: ~r I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS k"_ . 0 R-RD RURAL DENSITY o R.LJMD URBAN LON.To-MEOfUM DENSITY la. R-HD URBAN HIGH DENSITY . COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENl CLASSIFICA nONS .."r.a ... 0 C-HR RETAil SH)PPING (NEIGHBORHOOD) / BJ c..cc RETAil SH;>PPING (COMMUNITY) /" Q C-TC TOWN CE~TER 8 C-HG HOSPITALlrY & GENERAL BUSINESS 1:3 C.BO BUSINESS 'FFICE PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS .. I -PI PLANNED ,NDUSTRIAL i PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS \ III ~, ~""",~ .,,""~ I i ROAD CLASSIFICATION ISEE Tk. .SPORTA T"'" ...... :l'!.~ FOR ;OMPLETE MAP) t;;I ARTeRIAL 18 COLLECTOR l~. ...c'" '" I. 1 T .,~.~'t7:.. ~:. ........ " , i .1 ..... " t' '." ; ~~\; \ ""TuT ~:~'I.'''' 'N.' ~~, '/..,-~ \.~;""...,~.8 '~'i:'.. .. O.-..J. . ~,., ,. .. c~'~ . _=~')~ ,~~'~/"Pl\< ~ :.~ ,.,. 'I~!. ~..~ ::' . .:t. . 1 . ' . i .' ~~.-:.:=-(: . . .'. ~~'~ 'L' _____: ,._~.. ". 8'-.-\ .~. -I- ".~. : ~ ..'>-........._~. \? :_ 1, . r L0,I' I . "(.. , .. I I'j~) .!, H ~ ." " ..' '. . ~r:. ~j Q .". I~ C::i .-. .~.. ''7.:. ... , ., I . ,u...i/~':';:::" ,.' \. :...., = >--,~ =\ i:i .......,..."" ~ =..t..., - ;- = .- M - . ~ m := ,..011 "1:". ..... I..n, . . " c- , Cl.UlT . - ~L~..#'" ~~,,~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~'\ ~~ ~ t ~ \.' ~ ;~ ~ ij ! .1 'I 1Ie.... ~.r' nU" \~ , :-.; ~~ c--.'-.'-.' :0..' ........ .._~,...." I .=" = ....~~. = ~ -::..;:'"" 7(/'~ if' ,:". '" .,. = o pO ..-. .. ..... ......'" ..,no .....-.. ".- ........ ......" ,.."" - .~ .. l\i1:'\'\'\'~ ~....~ I~."'~~~-: ~~ 't' . I.. , .. .. . . .' .' ..>~ ;;. .'.. t:i ..~ .... \~ i. \~ .\..,..........,".~ -I. IT I . 1\ .1."....I~~ \~\~ . ~'I~: ""'j ~ , ".'~w, "~ ,,"- ~ ~' ~ ~~z~ ...... ~,,,,,...............:. ............ .....................: ~ :-. ...- ....~ ;-'.'00 .. . ... ~ lio.r ~ ..- .... aM'" R.L. S. ~./ '&1 ~ -. I $. .t.,,: ........ '. ',.:.....~.~.T~llTn.I.i'. ..1'11\ 1+\.\.i.H.LL'!t'III+I.I.I,1. {II '.L"'1,' ~.~ ' " . .. " . ~E:;;;;;; ........ 1"ITn:1 TITI I ,. ~.. .~.:::j-:.tnTr ' ~;: :," : ....., ~ ~ qk! ! Ii! - :... ~H+frfh..ffldl..1'+w . , "" '4. t: ~I--'- _.,~ 'r1'-~ \..-~ I-- ..~ ..-'- = - _.1.:"" \ , . _n" ,.., '--" = ~ = - · . "- '. ..,.. . "". _ =. ._._ I----i~' --=:.-- ~ ....... .~ ,-ill .., . ,__ ..." .. ...~ ~ - I . 'i):Ij;O 1\ "\;" , ". . A,<, , .._ _ - · >-=- -.:-. 1/1 I - , '\':~I' ..;t"~~:lf' "~';:" ~;:: ~":('~~"r.'- ['ia.!!!!~7'4t -' ,'R~~4 ',~~ ,.~"""J-\ '....,'i., ,,' _ ~ .' ,2/' ,:~'I;:r~J2~ ,71.\ ~..+-.~'~-~ ,d'f'.:=:lY~' !,~).::::: . ,\ \ :::r __ 8 - ~ <-< ", ,.. h,!t! -...1 ~ r ,,~-I"';' :" };} · . ~~ ! ~.:. .~(s\'" _ ~ ~ " I ~~I'!i..'~"i- . ~ l...J ..J...~.f f:;::l II F ,;1:.".' i. ~~; t ~..~t~...-c-c """~ .~:/ __...... -7. ..,.o>4i .' ./O.....'l:'...T'., ;-:.'1 ,.,. es~H3 " l::::;r -,,-- " ~""" 1-7'"," ',.;'''I~ , ' " · ' ' ' "T'l'~' · I . .'" ,ll; / , ~~::~~.' '~~~tJ;-:~~~!~t,. \~'~\~'~,~/-=:;~~.. . .-O,,=,M. 1-'-"':: ,t.~YI/::::i~ . L::.'~\' ., M. ,,," '- ____ iii _ . . . 17~~. . .' \:- . I:ll' , . ,:r:-. . ~ ..... ....~ - \. .. ~I- :'.. I . ..~ . .' . . ~!-.'" . .. .. ~,~ ~\. ~~~=~ '-l F."I" L,........ '. .. .'..1.." . n ~ 0 .. :1' :J L . . .~ .~..... ' ,/". .,. , -. ~~ i - 4 ..;;. --. - -1. .. c: A ~ : .' .~ ' , '.. , ~ l/-.... i .,'" .... ...~' ., .. ',..\ r.1I.!!!.'1_'" ~,. .. .\'J;;-.' - ", ry I ;.j- ~ ,. ....... ,._ .' ',.' ~. II . '/'<'~...j/-\.' ~ _0. -'I~ ~ r\,-l~' ~ .. ,a~" . :. 1M .~ _ .,' \ ,..~ .-4 p.i t--/TJ~J" . .' ~~ . ~ ~\ . lie if.f11 " " .,~.' ~. . ' J ._- '. I -' ~ "" ....y-; ".rl<\'" ~ ).!~~~ ..' :"~"~:~~\'. . :::~ J/{.: ,~~\\ .. .~r. ~... -,< .i $ b ..~~t'-:11~o., '~.~W! iF I" , -'-' _ -. ,- ......,..... ,:/" L '......' I' .' 'EL"4- 0=- ",,' c )". ii7'~ ., .. \ ,/ ..... ,I ". ,..... /. ~-! ' ' . ~~.,,, .... ~..;;....::' --, : ' ... -'. r ~ i I ~-':"~'" --.~'\Ir' ... l.~~.:, ~'I.:.;--t. : ..'\~. \'J'I'., DO 'i I ~~ ; < " .......:.6... ':\ ' , . ' .. /, - I. ~ ~ i...." ".. .... , . \ ';., .~. . G.J _. . '~ t ,.~~c..-.:.:::::.: I; _~ //C' RV. ST'A T' ll~':.. '. >,., .~':: -0 '.l~.~ . I~' . . _ , ,.1.l""U..-' . ~1"J..^ y" THE i:- t iY". '<"'S_ ; D;;t L. , . . ',' .. - - . .' <' ..;-'" ~ .V A)...... ......... ......,. ~.. .. . LAKE' j" ~$' ' . \' ". MlnJdO"'" :; , . , . . " , · ' . Ii; ~= I "'. , " ,'..... ,~ t:ti. ~ t '~ -P-i ~:i I I ~ .", :=J V'r1<P1.. ~~..:..-..j ~P!;.~ . I-.:.... \ --......1 ......\ ,.,;;;.. .11 ........_. b;;'_' l...~t . '\- e#"~""'. --......, -:-"\.. ~,',. ~'. \. ~. ~~ ~-~--~ ---- ----.- J. r-.AI q~;;: l2:. i .- . . , ,,/ _ '. _._ . , k ,i=' v. .' . 1 ..... - I. ..~,.<... 2 -~. ,,: "'-:r::JI~~ I . '....;- ""/ ' .' ~I"" . ~~~~.. , ,,....:_I_.~ ~ ~ ~ '" .. "'::: dt:t~ I . . - (Dii n. · -,.:; .. . .. ~ '"'- 3 l ... ..." \ Zo/. .-..; ..i.O~NG MAP 1'.... i'''::'':;"'' " --, ..... o ~ , ..ICE] A R-S R.1 R-2 R-3 R.:4 C-1 C~2 C-3 C-4 C-s 1-1 flUO' sq AgricUittlral . , . Rural Subdivision Residential low QensjtyResidential Low to Medium Density Residential. Medium Density Residential High Oi3nsrty RElSidential Netgt1borf1OOd. commercial eummunlty8tJSineSS Specialty BusineSS General Business Business Pafi(. (3eneraIlndusUial Planned Unit ~ $hOreiand Qlstrict .r- . ~..... ~I .... .-" "'- ...~ ..... -.-"'"' .-. . -" ....... ...t~ ...... nrATtS R.I.. $. 1&1 _: -I -. . . ~~ ~~. ~. . ...;.-- 1 '"!"'I: I ,; i.:i " ry' .. z ; : :..... ,. "rffk~/ ';'.: ,...... ..-........ ' ".......~ __. '. . i. ~ f i '. i : ..... -. 1 ...... I ..._ .......ec. 1 ...... ...:..:r.--- A .....".' ........ -.. 5~ 1 ..- .~ .~-I J. / ....-. ...... ... ~\.:.. ( /IT -- COl--=., IIiotIM I _t__' - ... l ..!-" . i I --.... L-. . PLAt--J~I~b CoM MI5~IO"-J M 'NIA11a~ Staff felt the variance hardship criteria had been met and recommended approval of the driveway width. Bryce Huemoeller, omey for the applicant, 16670 Franklin Trail, said the staff report states the facts and a ed the Commissioners to approve the varianc . mg. The hardship criteria has been met. ere no opposed to the driveway width. Stamson: . Concurred with V oOOof. Thi Kuykendall: . Added it was in the the variance. lie's interest as w I as the individual property owner to grant MOTION BY V OF, SECOND BY KUYKE RESOLUTIQ 99-12PC APPROVING A 15 FOO DRIVEW WIDTH OF 39 FEET INSTEAD OF T MAXIMUM WIDTH AS MEAS D AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF 24 FEET. V e taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. * B. Case File #99-050 Northview Development Corporation is requesting an amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan for the property located at 4520 Tower Street. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 1999 on file in the office of the City Planner. Northview Development is requesting an amended to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on the property located at 4520 Tower Street. This site consists of2.92 acres of vacant land and is located on the south side of Tower Street, between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of the Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early Learning School. 1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999.doc 2 The Planning staff finds the proposed R-HD designation consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. While there is a definite lack of commercial land available, there is also a very real need for rental housing in the City of Prior Lake. The stafftherefore recommends approval of this request. Comments from the public: Jeffrey Gustafson, Northview Development, explained his company has tried to come up with the best use for this property but still felt high density apartments was the best fit. They feel apartments meet the needs of the community blending in very well with the single family homes. They would also put in a park and be part of the neighborhood. Gustafson also explained their management company's goals and procedures. There will also be some underground parking. The developer said they would be willing to meet with the neighborhood and present their proposal. Tom Batchmen, Pinnacle Realty Management Company, stated they are a nation-wide company and he personally has been in the Twin City area for 30 years. Batchmen said he would answer any questions from the Commissioners or neighbors. James Gustin, 4543 Pondview Trail, said he was opposed to the rezoning request. Gustin pointed out two newspaper articles; 1) The property owner claiming the land is top commercial property. And, 2) According to the recent city survey citizens of Prior Lake indicated they want commercial property and slower growing developments. Gustin also read comments from the Commissioners from previous meetings supporting commercial development. All comments were against rezoning. Jim Ericson, 4544 Pondview Trail, reviewed previous meeting comments. Ericson said he called the Federal Post Office and indicated the availability of property for their development. The Post Office seemed interested. His feeling was for commercial development rather than high density housing and did not want to see it rezoned. Clayton Harder, 4510 Pondview Trail, agreed with his neighbors. He mentioned the traffic situations and felt there would be a short-cut from the new ball fields through Toronto Avenue creating more congestion. Harder felt the property should stay commercial. Neil Boderman, general partner of the Priordale Mall, responded to the neighbors comments. He did talk to the Post Office who felt the property was too small, but they are looking at a larger site behind the Priordale Mall. Boderman explained the visibility is not good for commercial businesses. He has owned the property for 7 years and has not been able to attract a business and feels the best use for the property would be apartments as a buffer zone between the single family homes and businesses. James Kennedy, 4486 Pondview Trail, is a new resident to Prior Lake and agreed with his neighbors opposing the development. He felt the traffic would be much higher with the apartment project. 1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999.doc 3 The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . Against redevelopment at this time. The commercial property is a greater benefit to the City rather than a residential development. . There is sufficient high density in the area. Other areas in Prior Lake could be better served. . Recognizes it is not an attractive commercial property today, but there are many small businesses who will be interested especially when Coast to Coast is building in the area. . No evidence to change his mind. Kuykendall: . The proposal is very attractive. . Believes the area could be better used as a commercial area. . Spoke on visual impact for traffic flow. . Compliment the owner and public addressing the Post Office location. . Encouraged with the development of the Coast to Coast development. Other businesses may start looking at the area. . Kansier read the types of businesses permitted in the area. . Boderman explained there are no uses that will go back in the area. Visibility is a big issue for businesses. . Kansier explained the mini-storage zoning districts. . Not an unreasonable use to allow mini-storage in the area. . Supports the general principal of commercial property. . Kansier pointed out the high density land available in Prior Lake. V onhof: . Gustafson responded to the issue on the mini-storage and the setback problems with the surrounding districts. The project could not work on the property. . Agreed with the Stamson, that things have not changed significantly to justify the rezomng. . The Commissioners are looking beyond today in terms of development. . Mentioned the Coast to Coast relocation and believes the area will redevelop. . Explained the available land for high density. There is a need for commercial land in the City. . No evidence to rezone. Open Discussion: Stamson: . Commented on the visibility of the property. 1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999.doc 4 . The City is currently moving ahead with a ring road to develop in front of this proposed property. . Do not rush into changing the district. Kuykendall: . Explained the City has space for high density rental development. . Kansier responded to Kuykendall's question on the Scott County Housing Redevelopment Authority's report. . Suggested the Commissioners should revisit the mini-storage proposal as a conditional use under the Comprehensive Plan. Felt it would be a good compromise for all. . Rye stated that a mini-storage was not approriate in a commerical district. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDINGS STATED BY THE COMMISSIONERS INTO THE RECORD. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go to the City Council on Tuesday, September 7, 1999. This issue will not be a public hearing. C. Case Ri.!.e #.~99-026 Consider an amendment to the zon. i~rdinanCe regulati~he use of off-road motorcycles. / ~ Planning Director Don e presented the Planning Report,dated August 9, 1999, on file in the office of City Plann / / / / In April, May and June of 1998, e Planning Conmiission and City Council considered the issue of regulating recreational hicles in the' City. A proposed ordinance was rejected and staff directed to develop a ltew ordinance. "x During consideration ofthe last ordinance, 6h<< ofthe primary difficulties was defining and measuring noise levels from the,vehicles be~ considered. Noise monitoring is technically difficult to do properly-and the necess~equipment is expensive. There is also the practical difficulty of having the equipment o~and when a violation is observed. " , " The proposed ordinanc~ adopts the definition of a competiti~otorcYcle from the Federal Rules and r~stricts their operation in the City to property hich is more than 1,000 feet from aresidential structure or property which is zoned fo esidential purposes. ,/ f Questions f~ Commissioners: Stam.2P~estioned removing or altering the labels from the cycles. Rye responded it wou[d be illegal with modifications and alterations. 1:\99files\99p1comm\pcmin\mn080999.doc 5 City Council Meeting Minutes November 15, 1999 (F) Consider Ap val of January - October 1999 City Council Directives Report (G) Consider App al of Resolution 99-122 Aut ing Special Assessment Deferral for City Project 99-13 No Shore Oaks First Additio ewer and Water Installation. (H) Consider Approval ption and Display Permit for the Church of Sf. Michael. (I) Consider Approval of Te lquor License for the Church of Sf. Michael. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SE ENCK TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) THROUGH (I) AS PROP D. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Ke wski, Petersen, liner and Schenck, the motion carried. PU " OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Denying an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Request by Northview Development for the Property Located at 4520 Tower Avenue. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, the history of the item as previously considered by the Council which included denial of the request based upon loss of commercial land in Prior Lake, and the Planning Commission and staff recommendations. The request is to change the property designation from commercial zoning to high-density residential. SCHENCK: Asked for examples of appropriate uses in the CCC designation. .RYE: A variety of general business uses would apply, such as retail, services uses, and office. The designation is community commercial designation, which is more broad in scope that\ neighborhood commercial. BRYCE HUEMOELLER (counsel for the applicant, Northview Development): Summarized his November 8, 1999 letter which was submitted previously to the Council, including noting a project amendment for senior housing, that the property is not commercially viable, the property does not meet the CCC designation of the Comprehensive Plan, and that there are material economic and hardship reasons since 1998 that would justify the change. The factors that support the change to high-density residential are (1) this property can act as a buffer between the Priordale Mall property and the nearby single-family residential area; (2) the commercial 60 foot setback limits the uses of the property; (3) the current sewer line that crosses the property could be dedicated to the City which would resolve a current land dispute; and (4) competing commercial developments have made the property less marketable in the current market. Also noted that Priordale Mall has recently gone into Chapter 11 2 City Council Meeting Minutes November 15, 1999 bankruptcy, which affirms that the area is not commercially viable. Concluded that the property does not meet the fundamental criteria for CCC designation/development, and that multi-family residential would be a more appropriate designation, SCHENCK: Asked for clarification of the economic change since the 1998 application. HUEMOELLER: The applicant has spent 18 months of hard work trying to come up with a viable CCC use, The intense commercial development outside the City has negatively influenced the commercial development of this property. JEFFREY GUSTAFSON (Northview Development): Noted that Northview is currently in discussions with Millennium Properties and the Scott County HRA regarding a revision to the project into a senior housing development, subject to the zoning change. JAMES KENNEDY (4486 Pondview Trail): Commented that there has been no change in Prior Lake's lack of commercial property. Asked for clarification in the status of the proposed post office facility. Also noted that it should first be decided where the ring road is to be located before planning around it. It is also his understanding that the easement issue cannot be resolved by granting the landowner what he wants. Further noted that the area is already very congested. MADER: Clarified that there has been no formal action by the Council, but informally the City has asked the post office representatives to reconsider the downtown area as a possible location. NEIL BODERMAN (general partner, Priorda/e Mall and landowner of the subject property): Confirmed that Priordale Mall has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and is running at approximately 35% vacancy. There is no need for additional commercial space in this area, and believes the ring road is complete around the subject property. STEVE POTTER (4498 Pondview Trail): Asked what the population growth rate is in Prior Lake and the demographic. Commented that in the Windstar development, there are over 35 children under 5 years of age. Suggested a day care facility, or some use that would benefit the neighborhood, or suggested needed school district offices. Believes the property could be a commercial development which would help relieve traffic congestion in the area during non-business hours. Also advised that property values would suffer with a high-density residential development. RYE: Noted that the growth rate is approximately 200 units per year, which translates to about 600 people. Indications are that most people moving into the community are young professionals. PAM GAILEY (4562 Pondview Trail): Concerned about the frontage road in front of EZ Stop and the traffic issues that would be compounded should the multi-family use be approved. Opposed to an additional loss of trees in the area as well. CLAYTON HARDER (4510 Pondview Trail): Practically speaking, it does not seem reasonable to develop such a small parcel as multi-family when it is more suited to commercial. Agrees with concerns raised by his neighbors. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes November 15, 1999 BRUCE LARSON (Millennium Properties): Noted that he is working with Northview Development to address the need for senior housing in the Prior Lake area. Noted that the use, while multi-family, would provide a good transitional property at a relatively low impact to the area. KEDROWSKI: Asked what type of senior housing is planned, including design, buffers, ect. LARSON: Preliminarily the plan would be for an unassisted community atmosphere at a minimum age of 55 years. They are only in the beginning stages of design. There are a number of ways to provide buffering, including fencing, berms, etc. MADER: Commented that in addition to the lack of commercial property within the City, there was considerable discussion and concern with the access to the Tower property being through the EZ Stop, as well as the importance of a ring road that is yet to be resolved. Questioned whether significant effort was given to determine whether a commercial use was viable. Also noted that the issue at this point is not senior housing, and that there is limited availability of commercial land within Prior Lake. The HRA study did not indicate that Prior Lake has a compelling problem in the amount of area zoned for multi-family development. Further noted that with respect to the sewer line, a residential zoning classification does not guaranty a solution to the problem. Believes the bankruptcy of Priordale Mall is irrelevant to this particular discussion. It would seem arbitrary for this Council to approve an action that we have previously denied and that has been unanimously recommended for denial by the Planning Commission. There are, however, many issues that should be resolved prior to authorizing any development of the property. Suggested a moratorium on development on properties potentially affected by completion of the ring road alignment for six months until these issues are sorted out. SCHENCK: Asked the impact of the ring road design change on this property if designated CCC versus a high-density residential. Asked for clarification of the 10 acres concept for CCC designation. Is there anything in the request that would guaranty a senior housing development. RYE: There would probably not be a significant difference in design as far as land use designation. The 10 acres was intended to apply to CCC designations for minimum area that could be designated under that category without reference to the platting or ownership under that designation. It wasn't intended to mean that every property within such an area had to have a minimum of 10 acres, and typically covers multiple properties. The discussion of senior housing is irrelevant for this discussion. The issue is a Comprehensive Plan change without reference to the type of ownership, type of tenant, ect. Once the change is made, whatever use is permitted, or permitted with conditions, or permitted with a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district, could be contemplated for that site. MADER: Clarified that the moratorium would affect all the properties that may be affected by the ring road, and that staff would be directed to determine those properties adjacent to the proposed ring road. WUELLNER: Commented that if a viable commercial use was proposed for this property, the Council would not be considering a moratorium. Asked what is the intent of a moratorium. MADER: Due to the unresolved issues with this property, feels it would be appropriate to manage the issues prior to creating more issues with any type of development or zoning change. WUELLNER: Commented that the applicant makes a viable arguement that the existing Comprehensive Plan designation may not be appropriate. Supports the applicant's request. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes November 15, 1999 PETERSEN: Believes the City should address the ring road issues before any further development takes place. Also does not believe many issues have changed since the 1998 application. KEDROWSKI: His understanding on the ring road was that the only issue was whether a parking lot and building would be impacted, and staff was directed to come back with another curve at that access point. Multi-family zoning is less obtrusive than commercial. Used the Burdick property as an example of how transitional zoning is important, and that the Tower property may be able to act as an appropriate buffer. SCHENCK: Pointed out that the residential neighbors seem to prefer a commercial use of the property. MADER: Noted that the curve of the ring road was only a portion of the issue, and that the ring road was only half laid out. RYE: Clarified that there were two different things: (1) the entire ring road concept from Franklin Trail to County Road 23; and (2) the official map through the Park Nicollet property over to Toronto Avenue. The Official Map only dealt with the center line designation on a map from the Park Nicollet property over to Toronto. The question came up at that point of what happens at the other end, which in turn triggered the discussion about bringing the issue back to the Council at a later date for more comprehensive review. MADER: Stated that the problem with the Burdick property was the removal of a berm, and development within the setback. Advised that a this Comprehensive Plan rezoning is significant in that it sets the stage for what happens next (i.e. changing the zoning to be consistent with the Compo Plan). KEDROWSKI: Commented that the berm and garbage enclosure with respect to the Burdick property were not entirely the issues. The issues were development. PACE: Pointed out that Mr. Huemoeller's reference to sections of the Compo Plan is new information that the Council received tonight and when he cites that something is inconsistent with the criteria for that district, the flip side is that there should be some input on the goals, objectives and criteria for the R-4 out of the Compo Plan. Secondly, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider the easement litigation with Neil Boderman as a factor in its decision to change to the Compo Plan. Also commented that Mr. Huemoeller's testimony tonight raised more issues, and that this is not a public hearing, and all interested persons and/or staff may not have had the opportunity to respond. Mr. Huemoeller has confirmed that the 60-day rule has been waived by the applicant. Suggested that defering this item for further staff input and Council discussion is an option to consider. SCHENCK: Commented that there are three needs in the City: (1) senior housing; (2) commercial development; and (3) rental units. Would not support the Compo Plan amendment. Also clarified that the school has the option to purchase the property in question. Strongly supported proceeding with the ring road project. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DENY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST BY NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER AVENUE. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes November 15, 1999 A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY SCHENCK AND PETERSEN TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT FOR FUTURE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen and Schenck, Nayes by Wuellner and Kedrowski, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. Consider Appr< I of Resolution 99-123 Approving the Final Plat and De~ pment Contract for Wild Oaks. BOYLES: Review the nda item in connection with the staff report, subject to six conditions. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO A ROVE RESOLUTION 99-123 APPROVING THE FINAL PLA ND DEVELOPMENT CONTRAC FOR WILD OAKS. MADER: Asked if there is any criten on the final plat which rep sents any significant difference to the preliminary plat. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-124 Appro Glynwater 2nd Addition. d Schenck, the motion carried. KANSIER: No. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, g the Final Plat and Development Contract for MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND ADDITION. TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-124 CONTRACT FOR GLYNWATER 2ND MADER: Asked if the Resolution is accur Y of November, 1999. PACE: Clarified that the staff has rece' ed a letter from the Develope who volunteered to comply with the criteria as set forth especially as ey relate to MUSA designation. McDERMOTT: Confirmed that th PCA and Met Council have approve e MUSA extension of the sewer and water. rried. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Ked wski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motio Consider Approval ot Ordinance 99-18 Approving an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Sunset rovisions for the Combination of Nonconforming Lots, Lot Area for Duplexes, Require Setbacks in the Shoreland District, Setback Averaging in the Shoreland District and the equirements for Hold Harmless Agreements. 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12/20/99 MADER: Asked staff how much they Id need to see in e form of a plan and submittal to combine the lots. If the requirements are minimal, lieves the p. office should submit for approval prior to the Council taking action to vacate. Asked sta 'f the p office submitted for a lot combination, would it reverse its recommendation to deny the vaca struction plans for a RYE: Concerned that the City is not in a position to approve or disapprove federal agency. KIRKMAN: Understands t to be true, although he understands t typically flex that muscle un regulations. the postal service does not ort to comply with local zoning RYE: The lot combination is an administrativ ro 5 that can take place within a couple of weeks. In terms of building approval, we would nee e same el of detail as any other applicant applying for a building permit. The staff recommendaf denying the ation would not necessarily be reversed with an approved lot combination becau It is really a functio of how the site lays out with the buildings proposed. KEDROWSKI: Asked if the po service has to respect the easem t if they own the land. KIRKMAN: The postal s ice does not have to respect local zoning gulations, they would have to respect the real esta rights owned by the City. MOTION BY HENCK, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE THE PUBLI HEARING. VOTE: Ay Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. PACE: Proposed revised language to the Resolution in order to accommodate the concerns of staff. Approval of the vacation would be conditional upon application and development plans submitted to the City, a definition of development plans, approval of plans by the City, submittal of lot combination, and approval of the lot combination by the City. KIRKMAN acknowledged that is the language the applicant is requesting. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-138 VACATING A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ENIVID FIRST ADDITION AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. ~ OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Adopting Findings of Fact Denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Northview Development. BOYLES: Gave an overview of the item in connection with the staff report. 4 Kedrowski: Asked the City Attorney to comment on new issues submitted into the public record outside of the public hearing process regarding this matter. fACE: Commented that in the past she has expressed reservation concerning land use decision pertaining to matters other than this issue, and specifically with reference to the public hearing on this matter, when, after a public hearing has been closed, an applicant's counsel is given subsequent opportunity to enter facts into the record that may not have been discussed at the public hearing. The public hearing in these matters are before the planning commission. In this case, the applicant's counsel did have an opportunity to address the City Council outside the public hearing and took such opportunity to enter into the record issues or facts that were not discussed at the planning commission level, nor did staff have a chance to review or comment on such matters. Subsequently, the applicant's attorney has written to the City Manager and City Council with a request that the Council's action directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact denying the comp plan amendment be reconsidered. The letter of request contains additional arguments that are in the nature of testimony. It is a decision for the Council to make whether it believes that the testimony at the Council meeting on December 6th and the testimony in the letter requesting reconsideration is tantamount to putting additional evidence into the record. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS ITEM TO THE 2ND MEETING IN JANUARY AND DIRECTING A NEW PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. Councilmembers SCHENCK, WUELLNER and PETERSEN agreed they would like to hear additional testimony in light of the postal service site selection. MADER: Commented that he would support the motion, but that the issue has been before the Planning Commission twice and the City Council twice, and in all cases denied. Also noted that it was those who opposed to the comp plan amendment that were not allowed to speak, so to the extent that the process was compromised, it was done so to the benefit of the applicant. Even so, the Council still did not approve the resolution. PACE: Asked if the applicant has agreed to waive the 60-day rule. BRYCE HUEMOELLER did not approach the podium, but indicated that the applicant has agreed to waive the 60-day rule. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval 0 ution 99-139 Adopting 200 rior Lake Budgets and Certifying Final 2000 City of Prior Lake Prope unty Department of Taxation. SCHENCK: Asked if the $90 taxes. TESCHNER: A ro estimate would be a 2-3% reduction, but explained that there is a bounce-back effect when apply a one-time revenue source, and the $90,000 would have to be made up for in subsequent years. 5 I' DEe 14 '99 03:43PM HUEMOELLER & BATES P.2/4 HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFIC;:f flOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNF,SOTA SS37:l )AM~S D. BATES BRYCe D. HUEMOELLel~ Telephone (612) '147.2131 Telee')pit-r (612) 447.~628 December 14, 1999 Prior Lake City Council 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Designate Property at 4520 Tower Street as High Density Residential Dear Council Members: This letter i.s written on bel).a1f of Northview Development Corporation, the prospective purchaser of 2.92 acres of vacam land located at 4520 Tower Street, to request that the City Council reconsider its denial of the Northview application to change the 2010 Comprehensive Plan designation of the property from Community Retail Shopping (C-CC) to High Density Residential (R-HD), PROPOSED USE N orthview proposes [0 constrUct an apartment complex on the property. The project will have underground parking, limited amenities, on-site caretakers and professional management. Northview will consider the property for senior housing. WHY RECONSIDER Northview believes that the City Council should reverse the action taken on November 15 and approve me change from the C-CC designation to R-HD because 4520 Tower Street does not meet the criteria set forTh on Page 57 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan for the Community Retail Shopping category: 1. The minimum size for the C-CC category is 10 acres. Since the post office is now locating its new facility on the land lying between 4520 Tower Street and Priordale Mall (which was uncerUlin when the City Council considered this matter on November 15), the 2.92 acres at 4520 Tower Street, by virtue of the intervening post DEe 14 '99 03:43PM HUEMOELLER & BATES P.3/4 Prior Lake City Council Page 2 December 13, 1999 office use, cannot be combined with the Priordale Mall to meet the minimum size requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. Nor can 4520 Tower Street be combined with any other commercial parcel because it is bordered by a stIeet, school, homes, and a significant wetland. 2. The development location criteria on Page 57 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan srates that C-CC uses are nOt to qe located adjacent to low density residential land, need a high level of transitional uses to adjacent residential land, and should be located at an arterial and major collector intersection. Therefore, since the property at 4520 Tower Street is located adjacent to a single family residential area, provides !ill gansition to the adjacent homes, and is not located at an arterial and major collector intersection, it does not meet any of the stated criteria for the C-CC category. 3 _ Other land wiThin the City, such as the parcel located in the southeast quadrant of the 5TH 13/CSAH 21 intersection, does meet the C-CC criteria (that is, not adjacent to low density residential, and located at a major intersection) could be redesignated to C-CC, if the City COWlcil desires to maintain the current balance of land designated C-CC. The precedent for trading land use designations in Prior Lake is well established, with notable examples including Comprehensive Plan amendments to facilitate development at the Wilds by the exchange of MUSA boundaries. CONCLUSION Northview Development Corporation requests designation of the property at 4520 Tower Street as High Density Residential because the property does not conform to the stated criteria for the C-CC designation and there is established precedent in . Prior Lake for the change (or exchange) of use designations to facilitate development. Sincerely yours, f nn _ re:l \"l~~~ B;yce D. Huemoeller . BDH:dw cc: Norrhview Development Corporation DEe 14 '99 03:44PM HUEMOELLER & BATES P.4/4 . .. 1f. Development Location Criteria C-NR: May be adjacent to low density residential areas; buffering and screening of activity areas from residences required; and should be at the intersection of streets classified as at least collectors. [ C-CC: Not adjacent to low density residential land and development; high level of transition to all proximate residential land and development; and should be located at arterial and major collector intersections. . Maximum Building Coverage C-NR: 40~OOO square feet;f; C-CC: 275,000 square feet '" ,.. All yard and parking minimum standards are met or exceeded Maximum Lot Area C-NR: 5 acres t[ Minimum Requirements for Development C-NR: 2.5 acres C-CC: 10 acres Public street frontage is required for all development, unless alternate access is expressly approved by the City for a Plarmed Unit Development or similar arrangement. Utilities All city utilities required; utilities must be Wlder contract for construction for land to be classified C-NR OR C-CC. Typical Uses Retail shopping centers and accessory and related uses that are clearly incidental to the primary use. CorJ"esponding Zoning B-1 or B-2 CQmprehensive Plan 2010 Chapter 3 Page S7 NOV 08 '99 04:16PM HUEMOELLER & BATES P.2/6 HUEMOElLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11>670 FRANKLIN TRAIl. POST OFFIC~ "'OX 67 PRIOR, I.AI<E, MIN1'I~snT^ 55:072 I^M~S D. BATES I:lll,yCE D. I'IU~MOELLEI< Telepnon(' (M21 447-2131 T('lecopier (6121447-5628 No'Vember 8, 1999 Prior Lake CilY Council 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Designate Property at 4520 Tower Street as High Density Residential Dear Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of Northview Development Corporation, the prospective purchaser of 2.92 acres of vacant land locared at 4520 Tower Street, in support of its application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of the property from Community Retail Shopping to High Density Residential. PROPOSED USE Northview proposes to constroct a 64 unit market rate apartment complex on the property. The project will have underground parking, Umited amenities, on-site full- time caretakers; and professional management. mSTORY OF REQUEST A similar application had previously been considered and denied by the City Council in 1998, primarily due to concern about the reduction of available commercial land in Prior Lake. Since that time, Northview has attempted unsuccessfully to find a viable conunerciaJ use for the property, such as professional offices, low density retail, brick and tile distribution and sales, welding or similar fabrication facility, or a roini- storage facility. In general. these efforts were unsuccessful because the property is not visible, has limited access, requires an excessive setback from the adjacent school use, and has been severed by a public sewer line. Based on its 18 month investigation, Northview is convinced that commercial use of the property is not economically viable noW or in the foreseeable future. NOY 08 '99 04:16PM HUEMOELLER & BRTES P.3/6 Prior Lake City Council November 8, 1999 Page 2 The Planning Department evaluated me current request and in its Planning Report of August 9 recommended approval because the proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and there is a documented need for quality rental housing in Prior Lake. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on August 9. NumerouS neighbors appeared and testified in opposition, the common theme being the desire of the neighbors to have commercial property and business activities next to their homes. The Commission members ultimately recommended denial of tbe request, saying in essence that circumstances had not changed significantly since 1998 to justify a reduction in available commercial land in Prior Lake. After the Planning Commission hearing, Northview met individually with 4 of the 5 Council members. For the Council members who expressed concern over designating the property as High Density Residential, the principal reason was the reduction of available commercial land in Prior Lake. NOT A VIABLE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Northview would ask the City Council to consider the following factors that relate to the viability of preserving the propeny at 4520 Tower Street for future commercial use: . 4520 Tower was originally zoned commercial because it sat on the City's south boundary next to Priordale Mall. At That time, there was no other use for the property, because the adjacent land was either undeveloped township land (south boundary), a bar/bowling alley (east boundary), or the shopping mall. There was no reason to consider transitional or buffer zoning because the adjacent W oodridge Estates single family areas had not yet been annexed into the City or developed. However, the situation today is much different. and the need for transitional zoning between the adjacent single family uses and a future busy commercial area will be important. Good planning requires buffers between low density residential and nearby retail and commercial uses. The City's recent experience and litigation with the residents of Boudin's Manor is an example of the failure to provide an adequate transition between business and low density residential uses. NOV 08 '99 04:17PM HUEMOELLER & BATES P.4/6 Prior Lake City Council November 8, 1999 Page 3 . The rezoning of the adjacent school property frOID commercial to residential has the affect of increasing the side lot setback from 20 to 60 feet. As a result of that change in zoning, the options for commercial use of 4520 Tower are furmer limited. This issue was not considered in 1998. . Since 1998, it has been discovered that a public sewer line crosses and severs 4520 Tower. Although the existence of the sewer line effectively precludes many commercial uses, a sewer line will nOl interfere wilh the apartment complex that is proposed for the property by Northview. This was not considered in 1998. . Since 1998, 4520 Tower has become much less competitive as a commercial site because of other development that has occurred in and around Prior Lake: _ Shakopee has opened a major retail center at Marschall Road and 5TH 169 that draws customers from Prior Lake and its market area; _ Savage has opened a major retail center at CSAH 42 and STH 13 which draws customers from Prior Lake and its market area; _ Savage has opened a new light industrial park on 5TH 13; _ Savage is amending its comprehensive proposals to designate the west McColl Drive area for mixed use commercial and business park developments , _ Scott County has rezoned land at STH 13 and 282 for light industrial and commercial development; _ Prior Lake has rezoned S8 acres of land at CSAH 21 and Revere Way for business park development; _ Prior Lake has approved commercial developments on CSAH 42; _ The Mdewakanton Community has expanded its commercial area and has added retail and mini-storage facilities. NOV 08 '99 04:17PM HUEMOELLER & BATES P.5/6 Prior Lake City Council November 8, 1999 Page 4 . By any reasonable comparison, 4520 Tower is presently not, and in the foreseeable future will not be, ripe for commercial development of any kind. This is verified in part by Northview's actual experience over me past 18 months. However, the same conclusion is reached by applying the economic and financial analysis recommended by the Urban Land Institute in its various handbooks for shopping center, office, business and industrial park developments. The ULI says that market analysis is a crucial component in the development of property. That analysis requires an evaluation of the community's economic base, demographics, transportation system, amenities, development climate and projected demand for the end product. The ULI recommends "an analysis of competitive [commercial] facilities in [the] metropolitan area in...." A critical factor in the analysis is lithe local cost of living and housing, and the variety of housing and neighborhood types. I' Based on the standard set out in the ULI handbooks on commercial development, this property is not and will not be ripe for commercial development within any reasonable time period. . While me Planning Commission referred to the new Coast-to-Coast building as evidence of commercial activity in the area, another recent commercial project in tbe immediate neighborhood gives a much different view of the situation. The Park NicolJet Clinic was recently constructed on a site that was intended to be the start of an aggressive commerdal development in Prior Lake. In fact, after the construction of the initial building, no further significant activity has occurred because of both economic and political factors. Most importantly, the construction of the new Park Nicollet Clinic did not become a catalyst for economic development in the Priordale area (as Planning Commission members say the new Coast-te-Coast store will do), even though the clinic has highway visibility and better access. . The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority completed a study on rental housing in Scott County, and found additional demand for approximatel y 190 general occupancy unitS and 70 senior apartments in Prior Lake between 1998 and 2003. This study was not available in 1998, . 4520 Tower was not selected by the Postal Service as the site for the next post office. In fact, the parcel selected by the Postal Service lies between 4520 Tower and the Priordale Mall, and will effectively sever the property from the adjacent commercial uses. NO~ 08 '99 04:17PM HUEMOELLER & BATES P.6/6 Prior Lake City Council November 8, 1999 Page 5 BENEFIT TO PRIOR LAKE The requested Comprehensive Plan amendment has immediate and tangible benefits for Prior Lake. . As stated in the August 9 Planning Report, the proposed designation is consistent with the objective of the Comprehensive Plan to offer a variety of housing in Prior Lake; and is consistent with the City's Livable Community Goal of providing affordable and life-cycle housing. . There is a documented and recognized shortage of quality housing for seniors in Prior Lake, and this request will allow the construction of affordable market rate rental housing that will be of benefit to our senior population. . The requested change will allow the immediate development of a quality project in a difficult area of Prior Lake that will otherwise remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. . The development of 4520 Tower as an apanment site will facilitate prompt resolution of the pending sewer line easement dispute. . The request will allow the City Council to consider the rezoning of ower areas within the city that have better visibility and access to commercial use. Based on the foregoing, it is the request of Northview Development Corporation that the City Council approve the request to designate the property at 4520 Tower Street as high density residential in the comprehensive plan. Sincerely yours, ~ BDH;dw cc: Northview Development Corporation SUMMARY OF FINDfNGS Demographic Review . Since households are occupied housing units, household growth is the best indicator of housing demand. According to the Metropolitan Council, Scott County added nearly 6,300 households between 1990 and 1997, surpassing its gains for the entire 1980s (5,866 households). Meanwhile, the County is expected to see increases of roughly another 2,880 households between 1997 and 2000. . Growth in Scott County will continue to accelerate over the next two decades with increases of 12,370 households between 2000 and 2010; and 13,170 households between 2010 and 2020. This rate of growth is three times that of the metro area as a whole, between 1990 and 2020. . The accelerated growth forecast for Scott County over the next two decades is the result of improved access provided by the new Bloomington Ferry BridgelHighway 169 Bypass, coupled with adjacent communities, particularly West Bloomington and Bumsville, becoming fully-developed. . During the 1990s, 75 percent of the household growth in Scott County occurred in its three larger suburban communities - Savage, Shakopee and Prior Lake. Based on Metropolitan Council's projections, the three suburban communities are expected to account for roughly 85 percent ofthe County's household growth over the next two decades, . New Prague, Belle Plaine, and Jordan also experienced relatively significant gains in house- holds with increases of between roughly 20 and 30 percent projected for the 1990s. Growth in the rural portion of the county has also been strong during the 1990s, resulting from leapfrog development. Overall, the number of households in rural Scott County is expected to increase by about one-third during the 1990s. . The Metropolitan Council's projections shows household growth accelerating in the freestanding communities within Scott County over the next two decades while growth in rural Scott County will taper-off. The deceleration of growth in rural Scott County is based on the belief that managed growth will be enforced in rural Scott County, however, we believe that these figures are likely conservative and that this area will experience greater growth than is projected . Thus far during the 1990' s, every age group posted gains. Children (persons 17 and under age group experienced by far the greatest numerical increases, with an increase of just over 5,000 persons or 60.2 percent. The next two largest gains occurred among the 35 to 44 age group, (3 ,800 persons) and the 45 to 54 age group (2, 150 persons), both representing baby boomers. . . Scott County's senior population (persons age 65 and older) also experienced significant growth thus far during the 1990s, with an increase of nearly 1,670 persons (an average of 210 per year). The senior population growth is expected to accelerate over the next five years with the projected addition of 1,475 persons (an average of295 per year). MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . As with the age of the population, types of households also affect the types of housing needed. In Scott County, the largest household type categories in 1990 were married couples with children (41 % of all households) and married couples without children (29% of all households). The number of households in every household type category experienced substantial gains in Scott County during the 1980s. Married couples without children, however, experienced by far the largest numerical increase, with a gain of over 2,200 households (66%). . The proportion of all households that rent their housing declined from 19.5 percent in 1980 to 18.1 percent in 1990, due to the substantial increase in owner-occupied housing units. Renter households comprised only 15 percent of the County's household growth during the 1980s. . In 1990, the proportion of renter households in the cities of Scott County ranged from 8.0 percent (Elko) to 29.3 percent (Shakopee). Most of the county's householders age 15 to 24 rented their housing (64.2 percent in 1990), while the vast majority (between 65.8 and 90.9 percent) of households in the remaining age cohorts owned their housing. . Scott County's seniors tend toward renting their housing as they age: 16.5 percent of the householders age 65 to 74 and 34.2 percent of the householders age 75 and over rented their housing in 1990. On the other hand, the 25 to 34 age group comprised by far the largest number of renter households, accounting for 36.2 percent of all renters. . The median household income in Scott County is expected to increase from just under $55,000 in 1998 to just over $64,000 in 2003. The number of households with incomes of $50,000 or more will increase by 25 percent between 1998 and 2003, while the households with incomes below $50,000 will increase by only 16 percent. The substantial increases in income are due to large numbers of baby boomers aging their peak earning years. . According to Metropolitan Council estimates, Scott County will have added about 10,950 jobs during the 1990s. As with employment growth throughout the metro area, employment growth in Scott County is expected to taper-off slightly between 2000and 2010, with a projected increase of9,360 jobs. Job growth is expected to slow considerably in both Scott County and the metro area between 2010 and 2020. Rental Market Review . Limited rental housing construction during the 1990s has driven vacancy rates in the Twin Cities to an all-time low. Rental vacancy rates metro-wide were 1.1 percent as of 3rd Quarter 1998. . 380 rental units were built in Scott County between 1990 and December 1998. In addition, we identified 20 rental units that were lost to fire or converted to ownership housing resulting in a net increase of about 360 units. Meanwhile, the County has seen an increase of about 7,200 households. Thus, rental housing has accounted for only about 5 percent of the County's household growth between 1990 and 1998. ., :\'IAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . Of the roughly 380 units built in the County during the 1990s, about 10 percent were subsidized, 40 percent were market rate and one-half were affordable units. . The rental market in Scott County is also very tight. A survey oflarger rental projects throughout the County, revealed a vacancy rate of 1.0, excluding, River City Apartments which was still in its initial lease-up period at the time of the survey. . The following tables summarize vacanciinformation for both the general occupancy and senior rental projects surveyed. Shakopee Savage Prior Lake Market Rate Total Vacant Rate 668 7 1.0% 268 2 0.7% 280 4 1.4% 31 0 0.0% 55 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 1.354 13 1.0% Jordan Belle Plaine New Prague Total RENTAL MARKET SURVEY SUMMARY GENERAL OCCUPANCY PROJECTS SCOTT COUNTY November 1998 Tax Credit Subsidized Total Total Vacant Rate Total Vacant Rate Units Vacant Rate 48 0 0.0% 56 0 0.0% 772 7 0.9% 43 0 0.0% 17 0 0.0% 328 2 0.6% 48 0 0.0% 40 2.5% 368 5 1.4% 0 0 38 2 5.3% 69 2 2.9% 4 . 0 0.0% 53 1.9% 112 0.9% 48 2 4.2% 57 1.8% 157 3 1.9% - 191 2 1.0% 261 5 1.9% 1,806 20 1.1% * Belle Plaine Apartments is a 25-unit building with a maximum of 21 units receiving HUD Section 8 subsidies; the remaing units fall under MHFA's tax-credit program. Thus, the minimum number of tax credit units is four, but could be more. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. . The general occupancy projects surveyed had 1,806 units and an overall vacancy rate of 1.1 percent. Market rate and tax-credit projects both reported vacancy rates of 1.0 percent while subsidized projects had a vacancy rate of 1.9 percent. . There are currently 10 senior rental projects with 484 units in Scott County. A survey of these projects revealed 11 vacant units, a vacancy rate of 2.3 percent. However, eight of these vacancies occurred at River City Apartments. Excluding River City, the vacancy rate was 0.7 percent. Subsidized senior projects had a vacancy rate of 0.3 percent while the market rate projects had a vacancy rate of2.3 percent, excluding River City. MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. ., .) SUMMARY OF FINDfNGS RENTAL MARKET SURVEY SUMMARY SENIOR RENTAL PROJECTS SCOTT COUNTY November 1998 Shakopee Market Rate Total Vacant Rate 52 8 15.4% 45 0 0.0% 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 42 2 4.8% 139 10 7.2% Savage Prior Lake Jordan Belle Plaine New Prague Total Source: Maxfield Research Inc. Conclusions and Recommendations Subsidized Total .T otal Vacant Rate Total Vacant Rate 128 0 0.0% 180 8 4.4% 0 0 45 0 0.0% 39 0 0.0% 39 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 35 0 0.0% 35 0 0.0% 91 1.1% 133 3 2,3% 345 0.3% 484 11 2.3% . Demand for rental housing in Scott County was estimated at 1,110 units between 1998 and 2003. General occupancy demand was estimated at 750 units and demand for senior rental housing was estimated at 360 units. . Our demand methodology accounted for household growth (nearly 900 units), replacement need (100 units), pent-up demand (roughly 60 units) and a vacancy rate of 5.0 percent (50 units) to allow for consumer choice and unit turnover. . Based on the projected change in income distribution of Scott County residents in 1998 and 2003; we believe that about 45 percent of the general occupancy demand (340 units) will be for market rate projects, 40 percent of demand (310 units) will be for moderate rent units, and 15 percent (110 units) will be for subsidized units. . There is a need for additional general occupancy housing throughout Scott County. The majority of the demand for market rate general occupancy rental housing is in the suburban portion of the county, however, a small market rate project could also be supported in the Belle Plaine-Jordan area. We feel that some moderate-rent general occupancy housing could MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. 4 , SUMMARY OF FINTIfNGS be supported in each of the larger cities in Scott County. We also recommend additional subsidized general occupancy housing in Shakopee, Prior Lake, Savage, and New Prague. . There are currently a large number of general occupancy rental projects either under construction and in various planning stages for Scott County, they include: No. of Units 4 32/6 152 24 56 136 56/12 30 26-28 50 Product Type Affordable Affordable/Subsidized Market Rate Affordable Affordable Market Rate Affordable/Subsdized Affordable Market Rate Subsidized Location Belle Plaine Savage Shakopee Belle Plaine Savage Savage Shakopee Shakopee Shakopee Scattered Developer Tom Meger Evergreen Development Stuart Corporartion Bergstad Properties Mary T. Inc. Hartford Financial Evergreen Development Sand Companies Sand Companies Scott County HRA Status under const. under const. under const. planned planned planned planned planned planned planned . There are 152 units of market rate general occupancy housing currently under construction and an additional 198 to 200 units of market rate housing planned for development over the next few years. If all of the planned projects are built as planned, the remaining demand for market rate general occupancy housing through 2003 will likely be satisfied. . 32 units of affordable general occupancy housing are currently under construction; an additional 178 units are planned, resulting in excess demand for 86 units through 2003. . Six subsidized (MHOP) units are currently under construction and additional 62 units are planned, resulting in excess demand for 42 units through 2003. . Based on review of incomes of senior households in 1998 and 2003, we believe that there is an unmet need for an additional 55 senior subsidized units through 2003. The remaining demand, roughly 305 units, will be for market rate senior housing. However, some of these households will need affordable market rate housing options such as those offered at River City Apartments. . Based on the age of the senior base and the supply of market rate senior housing already in Scott County, both independent senior housing and housing with services (congregate and/or assisted living) will be needed. About 35 percent of the market rate demand (about 105 units) will be for service-intensive housing and the remaining demand (200 units) will be for independent senior housing. . Currently there are a number of senior projects either under construction or planned for construction over the next few years, they include: :\IAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS No. of Units 24 24 42 24 30 29 Product Type Subsidized Subsidized Affordable/Market Rate Congregate/Optional-Services Assisted Living Assisted Living Location Belle Plaine Belle Plaine Savage Belle Plaine Belle Plaine Jordan Developer Belle Plaine Lutheran Home Belle Plaine Lutheran Home Scott County HRA Belle Plaine Lutheran Home Belle Plaine Lutheran Home Benedictine Health Services Status under const. planned planned planned planned planned . The two subsidized project either under construction or planned by the Belle Plaine Lutheran homes, if built, will likely satisfy the majority of the county's demand for subsidized senior housing over the next five years. . Between the two affordable market rate projects in planned by the Scott County HRA (River City and the planned Savage project) and the planned congregate/optional services project by the Belle Plaine Lutheran Home a large portion of the demand for independent senior housing will be satisfied. However, demand still exists for additional 82 units of independent senior housing in the County through 2003. . The two assisted living projects planned by the Belle Plaine Lutheran Home and Benedictine Health Services will satisfy 59 of the 105 units of demand for service-intensive housing in the County. Yet, excess demand still exists for another 46 units of this type of housing. However, the development of two assisted living facilities in communities as close as Jordan and Belle Plaine could create a saturation of assisted living housing in the Belle Plaine- Jordan market area in the short-term which could lead to extended absorption periods and excess vacanCIes. . A summary of the distribution of rental demand as well as recommendations for rental development in each community is discussed in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report. . It is important to note that the recommendations presented are to be used only as a guideline for development and should demand be unmet in anyone community it is possible that neighboring communities may be able to capture a portion of the stated demand. Furthermore, demand Jor rental housing is allocated only to incorporated municipalities because they have the necessary infrastructure in place for such high-density development. That is notto say that demand for rental housing does not exist in the rural portions of the county, but that much lower-density would need to be developed because of the lack of infrastructure. 6 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, L"JC. CONCLUSIONS A.1'ID RECOMMENDA nONS These projects have been very successful and a concept similar to this would do very well in Scott County. The recommended unit mix, sizes, and the rent structure are presented in Table 35. A ceiling or market rent could also be applied to these projects with rents similar to those suggested for the adult/few services projects presented earlier in this section. TABLE 35 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUBSIDIZED SENIOR BVILDINGS SCOTT COUNTY November 1998 Unit Mix 60% Unit TYpe 1BRJ1BA SizeiSq.Ft 625-650 40% 2BRJ1.5BA 825-900 Rent 30% of AGI Basic $275 30% of AGI Basic $375 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. Summary of Recommended Rental Development in Scott County Table 36 summarizes our rental demand calculations for ScottCounty by type of project and by community. TABLE 36 RENTAL DEMA!"'iD SL~IMARY SCOTT COUNTY 1998- 2003 Market Rate General Occupancy Moderate Rent Subsidized Senior Market Rate Service-Intensive Independent Shakopee 100-110 28-36 G 50-60 Prior Lake 316-324 66-72 24-36 45-50 Savage 36-42 28-36 40-45 Belle Plaine 16-24 30-36 0 50-65 0 Jordan 30-36 0 20-30 0 New Prague 0 18-24 16-24 0 24-30 340 300 110 135 170 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. 1,,- -) MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. " RENT AL HOUSING MARKET REVIEW Valley and Countryview Apartments have outdoor swimming pools. The remaining three projects have limited building amenities. Tax-Credit Proiects ~ Currently, there is only one affordable general occupancy rental project in Savage, the recently completed 48-unit Evergreen Pointe Townhomes. The project received funding through Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) Section 42 Low Income Tax Credit program and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority's Metropolitan Opportunities Housing Program (MHOP). Five of the units have been designated as MHOP units and are owned by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Four of the five MHOP units are reserved for families displaced by the demolition of Minneapolis Public Housing units and the other unit is reserved for the Scott County Public Housing program. The tax credit portion of the building includes 16 two-bedroom units and 32 three-bedroom units. The two-bedroom units have monthly rents of $590, while the three-bedroom units rent for $679 per month. The units feature private entrances, one and one-half bathrooms, dishwashers, disposals, central air conditioning, and washer and dryer hook-ups. In addition, a detached garage is included in the rent. Subsidized ~ The five MHOP units of Evergreen Pointe consist of three, three-bedroom units and a (hearing-impaired compliant) four-bedroom unit. All MHOP units have rents based on 30 percent of the household's adjusted gross income. ~ The only other rental housing project in Savage with a deep subsidy is a 12-unit public housing project owned by the Scott County HRA. The project, which was built in 1980, consists of two-story, three-bedroom townhome-style units with private entrances and detached garages. Rents are based on 30.0 percent of the household's adjusted gross income (AGI). All of the units were occupied and the vast majority of the residents are families. Prior Lake Twelve general occupancy projects were surveyed in Prior Lake. These projects are summarized on Table 16. The 12 projects have 368 units and an overall vacancy rate of 1.4 percent. Market Rate ~ Nine of the 12 general occupancy projects surveyed in Prior Lake were market rate projects. Combined, they have a total of 280 units. ~ There were four units vacant among these projects at the time of the survey, a vacancy rate of 1.4 percent; this compares with a vacancy rate of2.4 percent in the 1995 study. One project surveyed in the 1995 study was lost to fire and not included in this survey. 71 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. ..,O'~ E :~!3... ;;'00 ... -- .:>0 c;'i c.i ::; ~ oo~ 0\ N . , \,,IN c::lc::l :;:0:;:0 ~~ VI VI VI N VI VI 00 g"-l n 0' ~ g 0 - (i" V. ?2 J, (')Q 0'< 3 .:>0 ~-o o ii" =. >< i" ~ o . "0 .., ~ ~~ c..:;- .., ~ ';< > c..-- r; n c:; . !::..O tS ~ c.., 0": a" ;.: - ~ - 0": ~ I") . :r. .:>0 0\0 O\~ .:>otl) -l ~. o = ~ 0": ~ ~ ;ag Q.. '" \0 -....I \0 00 \"J \"J .... I , I \"J N- c::l~c::l :;:0:;:0:;:0 ~~~ -....I 0\ VI VlVI-....I OOVl 000 ":"l ~ = ::. C;" '" ONN o '" 0 .g 5' 52 C;-~-6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~2: ~ s: ri ~g a~~- .., n ~ l1l> ~ 0 :P N ~ ~ 5 *- ,~-o- 0 a >~ ,0' n 0 , 0 ~05. a:eo :0;;-, 3 S' S' ~r o c = 0' = 3 ~ ::;:-0 en ~ a -- =. ... 0 g t...JW ..- ~e:-....I ~~ ... . 0 ... ~ ~ ~ ~. In g n n ?- a c:; !2. ~ Q.. 0": ~ .., ~ (II; tl) !" - 0\;;" VI~ 0\:' ~; ..;' 0 ~ 0 ~c. - > "'"0 -len .., . ;.: tl) ~ .., -< , .... \0 00 o ",- -....I 00 0\ . , N - c::lc::l :;:0:;:0 ~~ -....10\ NO VlO -0 g~g"";'J -.g n ra.o 2. - 0 .., ~ ... '< Nli~a" .:>0 '" "0 _ Q..' ~ c.. o en g. C(Q S" n .. g. a ~ ~ a. ;a. ~ ~ ,<c>, ~ !! ~ 5 t] =- .., ~. ~ 9 g > '" 00 ..3 ?5 S' ~?S!:o o S' ::E ... ~=' c.. , .., ..en a. !!~... . ~ iii' .g g '? ~~ ~3 ';< rr. 0' - '-" ~...' 'J! ~~ 'J! 0'> -:-: "0 .., - ;.: '" - . ;;. ... .., ;.: \0 00 0\ N .:>0 3: x' o ... ff ~ en g.3: :::1;; Q..- .., - 0'< = 0 S -5 ii" '" ~ -- o o ...l ~. ~' . 0 o "? V. ti'"~ = 0- = .., c..'< .., .:>0 ~-o ~ii" c:; ~ !2.!" CD c.~ ~ ~ .., , ~ = ~ ~. S' > !2.n = ' c..o tl) 0 c..= :: :; 9... ~ - w 0\ ~. ~~ -:10 :r 0 tl) c. - ;" ~ l'I"' '" > ~ \0 00 -....I 00 00 N c::l :;:0 ~ 0\ o o * N .:>0 , N 0: ~ r"" o~~ ~~~ 'VIVI Eo/') , -....10\ NVI VlO I -....I -....I VI 0\ 00 , , N - ~c::l :;:0" o 000 \"J C. \"J 0'" VI ~ tl) ....owO c .= ~.... ;>\"Jg 3 VI = :::~~ (S. ~ n ~ =' en rr. ~o ii" Y' [ , ...a"Cc.":'l ~s::::",o o oa ::;: 'g :; o '< '" n-..,CJN =:sgFc = < - 3. CT:l 0 ::l 2 g. ;> g '" l'I"" g5l?Ng:h E:!0S!:~0- ::: ~.~;;: ~ [. ..-::s "..- '''' '" I !" en a" oOc;l1l>S: ~g'? (;::;~ f;- s ~ _ S' c;<5.j'.:-'::E !2.~~5~~ 2.. Q =:.':: ~_=='. CT:l ::CI.l::E~ ~CT:l0__Q.. ..,=-300> ~F~ ~-- r; 0 D tn"'O--_ _ ~ en g-oa 0 n Q" ~ ;::' .::E o ... :i .., ~ l":I ' =cr:: - ~ ':-""= r:; .:>0 C' 0 00:;: On .... .., o .... ~ = ~.'" ~ ~ ~ F:'l .... \0 00 .:>0 -- 00 -....I .:>0 00 \"J NOoooo . I I I N N - +c::l :::::l 0:;:00:;:0 m I m I z~z~ -....I . VI ~O~VI -....I OVl VI .:>0 0\ o 0 I , \0 0\ N VI o VI ....000 ~[ ~ CD' = Y' o' .., !" ~~ ~~ '" 0 _. 0 = ... 0":':: _ 'oJ ~ n . '" l:5~ ~o 2: c:: .., F ~O'g-]CI.l...'t'" ar 0..'" 0 ==' '" ~=..cn~~ 9" ::: b 3 = ::;......: !f :i.. 2. ~ !:?. ~50enO~ 0.:-'=;-' S!: =",o:.<a-o.. = - 0 C.S;00~0": =- ~ .., CT:l 0" o(JQ"O~o< ;':00"'=<; ~oo~~a :~~.g] 5::;.'. ~ n - cr =. C(Qjil[li~> ~~"'Oo!"o-- r: t;;:l 0 CI.l -. n ~ 0,- n :::' -a- ell a cr; "oJ ~ t'i" ~ ::1. ;> .::E ~ 2. g ~ a c.. _ o. n' _. ;.:S"aa-~ n~=..."'~o p ';< c.. ~ w~a; !-f1.~ ? - I> ., lJ':' :l " I> ~ o t': !l Z ; ($ -- r'" o o a g" \0 00 -....I t::::-<: ~~ 0\ 00 CZ :: ~ :::: 0 ell ..., c - 3: x' -- " g en < ;.: o E: n CD' en !:: ~ .., o -, ii" n o ~ g en > = ~. (ij' ell ;:::; 0' ~ c .., l":I ell '" "J f": 2 f": " ;> C"" nO ~~ 2<Q ~ 0 -: !:_ '::l > -:~ ~2~ .,o::~ ~===;;'" "'C""2 oo>~ ~> ~~ - >- - = - - " o '- t!": G en N I ~ s:~s: co co ., ., :O:-I.J:O:- !!,oSl ?fe. EAOEA ~...,C\ S>e 9 n IJ' o co ~i" g o 0 "0 ::I ~~ 3~> ~-<?5 :o:-~ o 0 ~ :; :;:i ~ g ~ c; r~Y' 1.J:o:-_ VI (JQ CO ~ ~ 5 C;;' n -- 0. ~. "0 -< &4;;=- ~.,(JQo ~g Er*" o. a tn c ~~ r; n ~ el ff ~. ~- S' :::-0 n co ~~ > < o ., co (JQ o ., o a "0 Ql Q: o ~;~ - (JQ c- C'\=-~ -l ~ c.: o 0 N' ~ 00. " o Co ., -l ~i ... o 3 o en - \0 00 o I.J C\ N o ~ , I I.J N c:ls:c:l :;.:::loo:;.:::l ., I I.J:O:-I.J o~o "#. 1 ?fe. o EA 0 ...,C\..., >~> 9 9 o 0 ~ Ql ~ o' en ~ -- 2: c: ., o ? oS: ~ - E!.=ri o > 3 ::'l o ::I C 00 a. g en 0. ~ ~ --::t "0 c: ~. 0 00 en cu g. a5: ~ ~. n ?- a -l co ~ ::I 0 c..:, 0- ., '< O'r -...J", ~;:: I ::; ~< N OC:: =cr: 2 r: - > ... - en .... ~ V; ('i' ;><;" I.JN ---- \0\0 C\VI I.J N N ~tv c:l::;; ::o::c I EA "" ~ 0' N 00 00 00 ~o81J'S: U)..,....~c:- I'D I.J ~ ":':: nOn > g. ~ S' ~ S' ::S-ICJ=X 00 CO 0 1 g. -0 ~=...' n ~ ("0. ~ eno.Er 9: Q;(JQ C - g~~>? !ii ~ -< .?5 ~ an 0 n I'D ~~~?- ~IJ'~ OC:IJ'~ 3(JQ ::g ~~5." "-" ~ Y' ';-J ennlJ'!!l. riQ" :; ~ 0 =. :=: g ~ ::'l '< - n n ~ N g ~ -g _:-.E. ::I ';:< =. o _ 0 . :? ~ ~ oc s: ;;<. o ..., ., 11> en CS g <:;;" ...; ~. ~ I ,.., ., ~ ?: :: ".:- r. 'Jl ;; 0''' 0:0:- 1 ~ VlO NO 00. 0> C;'S'. ~~ :;;: r. ~ g- ~ ~ !Zl ~ \0 C\ o IV ~ N - 00 I . N - c:lc:l :;.:::l:;.:::l EA EA VI VI VlO 00 ~ ::.. ~ < co n :: i'i '< ., CO ~ ~ 00 '#."#. en ." ~ S' 5'~ ., r; ~ ..tn ooo.-l ~ tn. ~ ~ -g 0 O~~ ~..~ t ~g-o "0 n--< :O:-OIJ' cr: 2. c:: O(JQ ..CI1 ~ ." o~ ; ~ (JQ. " C 3 a. .r ~ c:l f"J ::;;0 Q~ "0 ~ ~r ('i' C\E;' ~g \0 ;><;" ." ;1~ a tr a > 0"0 ><:;;" ~ . CIl ~ I.J o - N N~ I . N - c:lc:l :;.:::l:;.:::l "" "" C\~ ~ VI VI 00 VI o ?fe. Ci' ~. o' Y' o.e;-I.J (; C I ~5.g ff.:< ~ o.~ IJ' (JQ g- c: 2: n-cr ~ g ~ (; _. <; :.,~ ~ I.JNC: ~ ~ a. ~ c > 2. ?5 <:;;" - ... 0 ~ ~ (; ~ Nn c:lg >:-' ~.,,- 8 N S' Ob "0 ~ - 0' 0 ~~ (; ..l" o' ~ (; - ~~ !!l. e;- n I C\ o .,,- I.J C\ N N ~-C\ , 1 . N - 0 t:::c:lc:l :;.:::l:;.:::l:;.:::l EAEAEA ~VI:: 1='00 C\ VI o 000 s: ;;<. o ..., ff ~ !ii N N C\ 000 "#.'#.?fe. n ." ." o " - .E 2.cr.: ... 0 - [..~ ~ ~ -- o 2: p: g.gg-\H c--!a. n ~ n 0 ." _ 0 ., ::1,< . !!__~n ~... -g <" 0. tn. =. ;;,.. o n 0 _ ., 0 ~ 0. (JQ C ~ (JQ 3 ::1 c' . o.~." c.. ~ ::r'nY' g ~. ~ e:.. n9t.);r 0.0 ;;;=2_. "0"01 :0:- - S' > C!O~!l.~ S' ::I 0 .} J nO'."..... :- ~ !!. \wi _...-... ~ ~ ::I 0 ~ ~ ~ en 0. ~ ::I ~ C;;' ~:;'8 _ -.." :::~~ co Y' ~ ". - \0 ~ o VI ? - :; ., 7:' a ":1 ., o 11> ~ z co ::I ... n -- r o n a g' - '" :; ;:; " ~. ::I C " Co - c:lO< C 0 co ., c:Z _ 0 ... . ;:.' 0 ." ..., ~ s: >C. -- :;.:::l a ." < co n :: n o' ." -l ~ ~ - oJ ., o ::'l 0' ("'} ~ :l 3 a ." ? o ~. o' en -- ~ o ~ ., " ." ,.... ("'} I. i; Co - ~ ~ 2 ~ :=: > r (;0 -"" 2~g ~O~_ ~=_. ~>~ _ 2__ w .:~= ~~-<:~ .... \D:=: -.e CXl ;::- ~=- r2 >-: ,,> ~r - .. :=: o '- ~ S CI5 tf.l * > a tf.l "':l tf.l - ~ 0 c: .. c: .. m a .. ~ 0 c: :! C" C" .. ~ - II> ::l II> ~ n Ef II C. E.: e::: c: !l ~ ~ > -3 ~o S' j;i. z 3: (i ..9: 0 ~ ...:l ~ E- o. ~ 0. ~ :.> 0. c: >< C" II> tf.l - i'i :::'l (i c: " ;:::; '< A = " 3: 0- C" I a 0 c: a 6' "C S. n :.> E- o a '" >< .. 0 >< c o' " :::'l II> " II> " II> C. ::l " c: - Il> - .. ::l n '" n ::r " 0 :; II> 3 " " - g' -<: !"> Il> \0 .. " n --.l :.> ?" \0 - .. "C ... ~. " !l ~ Z 0 \H A P ~ 0- 0 A ::l 00 u;- 0 " ..., ... 0. E.: A c: I ::: \H ::: sa t::l ~ '" 3: tn. \H ~. ::r - 0 ~ 6' ~ :;: rr:: 0. 0 g 2 Vi' ..., u;- rr:: n > $: 0- 9 II> " t"'" n n 0 c: @ - n -3 n a <: 2 0< ~ ..... ... :.> - 0 0 "= ...:l " n n < > ::: ~ g g ~ > pi VI ::l 2 "= - n - ... n - iio C" ::c - II> ... " - 0< ~ - .., 0 ,.... - ;; - ::c - - N 0- lD ::=:: r,t:l 0- A V. - ID tf.l ~ t"'" 2 ~ ~ S' ClO > ~ < < (IQ co ~ :.> Il> 0 a r,t:l t"'" n n I :.> :.> "C "'0 "= ::: ::l ~ ... ::c n n g 0 '< '< :::'l 0 ... ... u;- 0 c:.. :.> ~ rr:: (i ~ N n - VI -3 \H tf.l !Jl (IQ tf.l n :.> n 0 ... g :.> :3 (IQ 3 " n ~ 0 ::l ~ c: ~ ::: 5'~ > ... ~ 3 " ~ g. ~ "C (i' ... ~ ~o ., I'D ~ ~ co i: ~ ~ lI> (iO lI> :! C. 0- r; S' ~ ii 0- RENTAL HOUSING MARKET REVIEW ~ There are three market rate projects of 40 or more units in Prior Lake, Tower Hill East (68 units) and Tower Hill West (51 units) and Priorwood (48 units). In addition, there are three other projects of between 24 and 36 units. The remaining three projects surveyed consist of a 7- and two 8-unit projects. ~ Five of the projects surveyed (with a total of 155 units) were built during the 1980's, two projects (with a total of 59 units) were built during the 1970's, and two projects (with a total of 66 units) were built during the 1960's. ~ Of the 280 market rate units surveyed, six were efficiency units, 98 had one bedroom (35% of all units), eight had one bedroom plus a den, 123 had two bedrooms (about 44% of all units), and 45 units (16%) had either two bedrooms plus a den/loft, or three bedrooms. ~ Monthly rents for one-bedroom units in Prior Lake ranged from $475 to $600 and averaged $525 per month. Two-bedroom units ranged from $525 to $725 per month and averaged $625 per month. Four projects had either two bedrooms plus a den, two bedrooms plus a loft, or three bedrooms. Rents for these units ranged from $575 to $920 per month and averaged roughly $745 per month. All of the efficiency units identified in the survey were located at one project, as were the eight one-bedroom plus den units. The efficiencies had rents of 541 0 per month, while the one-bedroom plus den units rented for between $560 and 5655 per month with an average of $630 per month. ~ Most of the projects surveyed in Prior Lake saw only modest rents increases over the last three years, approximately 5 percent. However, rents increased more significantly at Tower Hill East and particularly at the Hearthwood Apartments. At Tower Hill East rents increased between 7 and 14 percent depending on the unit, while rents at Hearthwood increased by 22 to 28 percent. ~ The amount and type of amenities found in rental projects in Prior Lake varied greatly from one project to another. Every project surveyed in Prior Lake includes air conditioned units and all but two projects have garages available. While most of the projects have detached garages, both Towering Hill East and West has underground heated parking and Towering Woods Condominiums has attached garages. About half of the projects have dishwashers in their units. All of the projects, with the exception of Towering Woods Condominiums and some of the units at Priorwood (which have in-unit washer and dryers), have coin-operated laundry facilities. Unique features included wood-burning fireplaces in the units at Hearthwood Apartments and vaulted ceilings at Priorwood Apartments. Towering Hill East includes the largest number of recreational amenities (outdoor swimming pool, whirlpool, sauna, and tanning beds). Tower Hill West is the only project that has tennis courts. A portion of the two-bedroom units and all of the two-bedroom plus loft units at Priorwood have one and three-quarters bathrooms, and some of the larger units at Tower Hill East and Tower Hill West have two full bathrooms. 75 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, L.~C. RENTAL HOUSING MARKET REVIEW Tax-Credit . There is only one tax-credit project in Prior Lake, the 48-unit Kestrel Village Apartments. The project consists of 32 two-bedroom units with rents of $680 per month and 16 three- bedroom units with rents of 5720 per month. The project is limited to households with incomes of 60% or less of the County median. The units include wall-unit air conditioners, dishwashers, mini and vertical blinds, and either balconies or patios. Each building has a security entrance and a common coin-operated laundry. In addition, there isa tot lot and 30 detached garages are available for $40 per month. As of November 1998, all of the units were occupied. There is a diverse mix of residents and a significant number of them receive Section 8 rental assistance. Subsidized . There are two subsidized general occupancy projects with a total of 40 units in Prior Lake; One unit was vacant at the time of the survey, a vacancy rate of2.5 percent. The largest subsidized project is Highwood Homes, a 36-unit townhome project built in 1980. The project consists of24 two-bedroom units, 10 three-bedroom units, and two four-bedroom units. Rents are based on 30% of the tenant's AGI up to the market rent of $619 for the two- bedroom units, $663 per month for the three bedroom units, and $707 for the four-bedroom units. The two-story units have private entrances, basements, air conditioning sleeves, and laundry hook-ups. The average rent paid by the tenants is $250 per month although one tenant pays the market rent. . The other subsidized general occupancy project in Prior Lake is Franklin Trail, a four-plex owned by the Scott County HRA. This project is subsidized through RUD's Public Housing program and tenants pay 30% of their AGI for rent. All four units have three bedrooms and detached garages. . Jordan Data on the six largest general occupancy rental projects in Jordan appears in Table 17. The projects have a total of69 units, all but two of which were occupied for a vacancy rate of2.9 percent. Of the six general occupancy projects in Jordan, four are market rate and two are subsidized. Like Belle Plaine, all of the rental units in Jordan are in smaller projects, the largest being 24 units. Jordan has more subsidized than market rate general occupancy units. Market Rate . Only four market rate projects were identified in Jordan, one small 3-unit project that was identified in the 1995 study has since been converted to ownership housing. The four market rate projects have 31 units, the smallest number of the six larger cities in the County. All of the units were occupied at the time of the survey. 76 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. 't' Available High Density Properties (Properties Guided as R-HD up to 30 units/acre) LOCATION ACRES CURRENT LAND WITHIN ZONING USE MUSA 1 17 R-4 R-HD YES 2 4 R-4 R-HD YES 3 4 R-4 R-HD YES 4 1.7 R-4 R-HD YES 5 30 C-5 R-HD YES 6 205 A R-HD NO 7 90 A R-HD NO 8 40 A R-HD NO * 56.7 acres of the properties designated as High Density Residential are located within the present MUSA boundary. The 2020 Comprehensve Plan proposes a "Floating MUSA" which would make most of the 391.7 acres available for development. I:\deptwork\rh properties.xls . -$- -$- , - - - t-\U - -l- _.- - . ,I ( 1\ -.-- \ " - - I \~.~-_!_:.~] _ __ \- j i I-~ ! - ,- " I .__ r--u l ,. f. .;. I --Tlrr;~ -1 ! \ i I __ _ \ I j i __ml.__J F1 \ II :~\~~ I i~! -}I ,~ -$- NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Tel (612)- 949-2667 Cell (612)-720-7174 City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S. E. Prior Lake, rvIN 55372 RE: Proposed R-4 apartment use on property on Tower Stred near Duluth Street In 1997 we analyzed the property adjacent to the daycare for the highest and best use of this commercially zoned property. We could not come up with any prospective commercial users, and aller studying the location and needs in the community, we realized an apartment use was the highest and most suited use. City Stall' concurred with this, and concept plans were developed. We did not !llTeSee any neighborhood opposition, as residential apartment units have historically made more compatible butTers between single !amily homes and commercially used land than any commercial uses. TIle neighbors did, however, object, and the Plalming Commission and Council agreed that before some of the limited, remaining commercially zoned land in Prior Lake was allowed to be zoned residential, commercial use possibilities should be exhausted betl)rehand. This land was always part of a larger part of the Brooks Hauser commercial parcel, and had this commercial zoning classilication for some time- while all surrounding land was still farmland. We feel that as the surrounding land was developed, the commercial zoning on this particular parcel became grand fathered to it, and that if it were presently zoned residential, it would not be allowed to be n:c1assilied as commercial at this time. TIlis land is remote from the highway lor both exposure and access, and aner the adjacent bowling alley and bar was allowed to be reclassilied to R-3 to allow daycare use, the Havor of this entire back blm:k became more residential rather than commercial in use. Over the past 18 months various uses were considered. The City has not been able to reler any commercial users our way. A mini- storage business was reluctantly contemplated, which led to the actual location of the placement of sewer and water lines across the property. This location became ditlicult lor the storage facility design, as it basically utilizes a large tootprint. After more analysis, we kept coming back to the realization that the highest and best use for the property is apartments. (As far as the location oflhe utility lines, it is coincidental that:the present location does not interlere with a proposed R-4 building location, as it would with most commercial multi-tenant conligurations. The lines tidl within what would be realistically acceptablc utility casement boundaries lor an R-4 apartment site plan). Two years ago the neighbors has several concerns -They did not really foresee a need in the City lor more apartments. Recent studies now show that there is need that our project would lilL _ They did not want to come home to see hecklers on decks looking down at them, and view people multiplying like rabbits belore their eyes. This would not be the case. 'Dle homes would view the end of the building rather than a longer front elevation, and is considerably quieter and less intruding than most commercial structure users. We worked with our management company to eliminate some of the exterior decks on some of the upper floors to eliminate the possibility of anyone of any age looking down at the existing rear yards.' Apartments are relatively consistent in occupancy loads. Family do not usually grow in numbers of household numbers and stay in the same b'Jilding. We asked the neighborhood what use lor our land they would like to see. Although they represented that they lelt that any commercial use would be both a better use that apartments, and that any commercial use would not be objectionable, the only suggested use ollered was that of the continuing use as a play area for their children- where then played then and would like to continue to be able to do so. While we can be sympathetic to this, it is somewhat unrealistic. Our experience is that people are aIraid of the possibility of future change, but readily accept it when it happens, and are more content once no additional change is possible in the future. The site plan could olTer reasonable butlering between our proposed building and the residential yards. It could even include playground type areas in this area acceptable to their family members as well as the building residents if desired. This is not totally uncommon. Our project would till a need in the City. aUf project would add the key amenity of professional on site management and caretaking to the property. Our selected third purty management company spends their entire etlort toward managing apartments lor owners. They do not have any ownership themselves. Management is a lull time business. Our buildings are designed for ease of maintenance and management. We do not want to own a project that is hard to keep maintained or diflicult to manage any more than the City would want a project that deteriorates and is not manageable. This is not the case with our design. For the past two years we have continued to keep Staff support for our suggested highest and best use, and again request a new review of our plans. We request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and an amendment to the Ofiicial Zoning Map to allow R-4 apartment LIse on this property. I .; ill ii; 'j~ It. j Il! ~ ~I! 11 ji~l ~ I. ,!J ~ .1.." L~~~~_ ~ ~! I~ lJ..j I ~l IG~ ia I -.11 ~ , Jihl 1~ J J ~ . I 0 ; ; , . . . - - : - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ t') ..,. L ..J i il ; III II i~ I~ I !j~ I , ~I! j 'r ~ i II ! 1 I ~ II .~ ~ ) I ii~l I ii ~ II 1 IL""_~_ Ii J i ~ I J ~ . i .0 I~n ~ ~ '" 8 ~ IX ~ou I ! lll.... '" ~"'lS 8 IX '" o ~ ... .... 8 <:: .. IX 0 o ., ! ... .... .. 0 '" ! 8 <> ~ ., 8 ... N .. IX ~ o ., ... .... .. ~ ~ ~ ..... o ., ~ ... N .. ~ ~ '" ~ 8 = IX o ., ... N .. 0 8 8 ! '" 8 '" IX o ., 8 ... .... IX .. o ., 0 ... N ! .. 0 <)- ! '" 8 '" IX o ., 8 ... .... .. IX c) o ., 0 ... .... ! .. 0 ! ~"'lS '" '" 8 8 IX '" '" IX S 0 8 8 ... .. .. ... IX IX ... "'0 "'0 z ~lll ~lll z 0 0 ... ..." ...so ... L ~ 2 ih j ~ ' . I ii ; -jl ~ (' i Ii ! . j !l! ~ ~ .1 ! 11 ml I II -==- !- I~n I ~ c:: J j ~t ~ ~ I s ~ I ~i I L""_~. Ii Jj : . : 1 a ~ U....l~...n ___ ~-----t.::\.-_____n- . ::~:::~~:~~~:::_-_:~-----~--------- . . . .. . .0-111 I I I , I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I ~: ~: i: i: J: I: .1 II r: ,: ! ':,' i ~, ~i ( _,.:., I: : :'A : : ,,, I I I ----------~-----~ I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I -----___.___J 3 J r ! 1 t ]I .t ! ] l .. . j I ~ ~ ~ II f ~ i ~~!tl ~ i IllI DULUTH \ \ , .. < MADER: Asked staff how much they would need to see in the form of a plan and submittal to combine the lots. If the requirements are minimal, believes the post office should submit for approval prior to the Council taking action to vacate. Asked staff if the post office submitted for a lot combination, would it reverse its recommendation to deny the vacation. RYE: The lot combination is an administrative process that can take place within a couple of weeks. In terms of building approval, we would need the same level of detail as any other applicant applying for a building permit. The staff recommendation denying the vacation would not necessarily be reversed with an approved lot combination because it is really a function of how the site lays out with the buildings proposed. KEDROWSKI: Asked if the postal service has to respect the easement if they own the land. KIRKMAN: The postal service does not have to respect local zoning regulations, they would have to respect the real estate rights owned by the City. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. PACE: Proposed revised language to the Resolution in order to accommodate the concerns of staff. Approval of the vacation would be conditional upon application and development plans submitted to the City, a definition of development plans, approval of plans by the City, submittal of lot combination, and approval of the lot combination by the City. KIRKMAN acknowledged that is the language the applicant is requesting. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-138 VACATING A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ENIVID FIRST ADDITION AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. -; OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Adopting Findings of Fact Denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Northview Development. BOYLES: Gave an overview of the item in connection with the staff report. Kedrowski: Asked the City Attorney to comment on new issues submitted into the public record outside of the public hearing process regarding this matter. PACE: Commented that in the past she has expressed reservation concerning land use decision pertaining to matters other than this issue, and specifically with reference to the public hearing on this matter, when, after a public hearing has been closed, an applicant's counsel is given subsequent opportunity to enter facts into the record that may not have been discussed at the public hearing. The public hearing in these matters are before the planning commission. In this case, the applicant's counsel did have an opportunity to address the City Council outside the public hearing and took such opportunity to enter into the record issues or facts that were not discussed at the planning commission level, nor did staff have a chance to review or comment on such matters. Subsequently, the applicant's ~ ~~ l4wt~'1 4 attorney has written to the City Manager and City Council with a request that the Council's action directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact denying the comp plan amendment be reconsidered. The letter of request contains additional arguments that are in the nature of testimony. It is a decision for the Council to make whether it believes that the testimony at the Council meeting on December 6th and the testimony in the letter requesting reconsideration is tantamount to putting additional evidence into the record. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS ITEM TO THE 2ND MEETING IN JANUARY AND DIRECTING A NEW PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. Councilmembers SCHENCK, WUELLNER and PETERSEN agreed they would like to hear additional testimony in light of the postal service site selection. MADER: Commented that he would support the motion, but that the issue has been before the Planning Commission twice and the City Council twice, and in all cases denied. Also noted that it was those who opposed to the comp plan amendment that were not allowed to speak, so to the extent that the process was compromised, it was done so to the benefit of the applicant. Even so, the Council still did not approve the resolution. PACE: Asked if the applicant has agreed to waive the 60-day rule. BRYCE HUEMOELLER did not approach the podium, but indicated that the applicant has agreed to waive the 60-day rule. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-139 Adopting 2000 Prior Lake Budgets and Certifying Final 2000 City of Prior Lake Property Tax Levy to Scott County Department of Taxation. BOYLES: Gave an overview of the budget process, noting several changes as discussed at the truth-in- taxation hearing. SCHENCK: Asked if the $90,000 were applied to the budget, what would be the impact to property taxes. TESCHNER: A rough estimate would be a 2-3% reduction, but explained that there is a bounce-back effect when you apply a one-time revenue source, and the $90,000 would have to be made up for in subsequent years. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-139 ADOPTING 2000 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BUDGETS AND CERTIFYING FINAL 2000 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SCOTT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. KEDROWSKI: Beyond the issues of the EDA levy and one additional police office, my recollection is that the Council had reached a consensus as to approval of the budget. Further noted the necessity of adding an additional police officer at this time rather than adding two officers next year. PETERSEN: Also supported the resolution. Councilmembers WUELLNER and SCHENCK concurred. 5 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: INTRODUCTION: DISCUSSION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DECEMBER 20, 1999 SA DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT DENYING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT At the November 15, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council considered the request of Northview Development to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of 2.92 acres of land located on Tower Street. At that meeting, staff was directed to prepare a resolution with findings of fact denying the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. Issues The principal issue is whether the findings of fact in the attached resolution accurately reflect the Council's reasons for denying the Plan amendment. Staff believes these findings are supported by the record of decision in this case but there may be reasons which staff has not reflected in the findings which the Council may wish to add. 1. Approve Resolution 99-XX denying the Comprehensive Plan amendment for Northview Development. 2. Approve Resolution 99-XX with modifications as deemed appropriate. 3. Deny Resolution 99-XX and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment with specific findings of fact. Alternative 2 1620:{iMm~\~IA\M\9~cBO;.cRl1i~~(}~Minnesota fi5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER RESOLUTION 99-xx RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, Northview Development submitted an application to amend the City of Prior Lake 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation) for the property legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, Enivid First Addition; and That part of Outlot A, Enivid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed m accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 9,1999, for those interested in this request to present their views; and -.l:\99fi1.e.s\99~0lJ1pam'l9~05.o\ccresn.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle UeeK Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER WHEREAS, on August 9, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 15,1999, the Prior Lake City Council considered the application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property to the R-HD designation and; WHEREAS, the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment along with the staff reports and the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property as R-HD (High Density Residential) is hereby denied based upon the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the Comprehensive Plan designation is in error and that a change is justified. 2. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the current Comprehensive Plan designation of C-CC (Community Commercial) is inappropriate and that it should be changed. 3. The Prior Lake Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on an insufficient supply of commercially-zoned property within the City. This request would reduce the supply of commercially-zoned land in the City by 2.92 acres. The Implementation section of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the creation of additional commercial and industrial zoning districts as a means of enhancing the City tax base. 4. There has not been a material change in the area or conditions affecting the site since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996. 5. The applicant relies upon the section of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan which states on page 57 that areas designated C-CC should have a minimum of 10 acres. 6. Commercial designation of the property is not affected by the 10 acre limitation on property in the C-CC designation because this provision applies to the entire district and not to individual parcels within the area so designated 7. Changes in land use designations in the area are premature until the final alignment of the so-called Ring Road has been determined. 8. The applicant states that the Rental Housing Study recently commissioned by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority justifies the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment of the subject property to R-HD (High Density Residential). 9. The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority study on rental housing in Scott County did not indicate there was a severe shortage of land available for multiple family development in the City. 1: \99fi1es\99compam\99-050\ccresn.doc Page 2 . Passed and adopted this 20th day of December, 1999. Mader Mader Kedrowski Kedrowski Petersen Petersen Schenck Schenck Wuellner Wuellner YES NO {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake 1:\99files\99compam\99-050\ccresn.doc Page 3 .. qt1-0~1 City Council Meeting Minutes November 15, 1999 (H) Consider Approval of Temporary Consumption and Display Permit for the Church of St. Michael. (I) Consider Approval of Temporary 3.2 Liquor License for the Church of Sf. Michael. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the consent agenda items. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) THROUGH (I) AS PROPOSED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: None. PRESENTATIONS: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. -7- OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Denying an Amendment to th.e Comprehensive Plan Request by Northview Development for the Property Located at 4520 Tower Avenue. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, the history of the item as previously considered by the Council which included denial of the request based upon loss of commercial land in Prior Lake, and the Planning Commission and staff recommendations. The request is to change the property designation from commercial zoning to high-density residential. SCHENCK: Asked for examples of appropriate uses in the CCC designation. RYE: A variety of general business uses would apply, such as retail, services uses, and office. The designation is community commercial designation, which is more broad in scope that neighborhood commercial. BRYCE HUEMOELLER (counsel for the applicant, Northview Development): Summarized his November 8, 1999 letter which was submitted previously to the Council, including noting a project amendment for senior housing, that the property is not commercially viable, the property does not meet the CCC designation of the Comprehensive Plan, and that there are material economic and hardship reasons since 1998 that would justify the change. The factors that support the change to high-density residential are (1) this property can act as a buffer between the Priordale Mall property and the nearby single-family residential area; (2) the commercial 60 foot setback limits the uses of the property; (3) the current sewer line that crosses the property could be dedicated to the City which would resolve a current land dispute; and (4) competing commercial developments have made the property less marketable in the current market. Also noted that Priordale Mall has recently gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which affirms that the area is not commercially viable. Concluded that the property does not meet the fundamental criteria for CCC designation/development, and that multi-family residential would be a more appropriate designation. SCHENCK: Asked for clarification of the economic change since the 1998 application. 2 - - - --- -- -- - - ---- - --...- City Council Meeting Minutes November 15,1999 HUEMOELLER: The applicant has spent 18 months of hard work trying to come up with a viable CCC use. The intense commercial development outside the City has negatively influenced the commercial development of this property. JEFFREY GUSTAFSON (Northview Development): Noted that Northview is currently in discussions with Millennium Properties and the Scott County HRA regarding a revision to the project into a senior housing development, subject to the zoning change. JAMES KENNEDY (4486 Pondview Trail): Commented that there has been no change in Prior Lake's lack of commercial property. Asked for clarification in the status of the proposed post office facility. Also noted that it should first be decided where the ring road is to be located before planning around it. It is also his understanding that the easement issue cannot be resolved by granting the landowner what he wants. Further noted that the area is already very congested, MADER: Clarified that there has been no formal action by the Council, but informally the City has asked the post office representatives to reconsider the downtown area as a possible location. NEIL BODERMAN (general partner, Priorda/e Mall and landowner of the subject property): Confirmed that Priordale Mall has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and is running at approximately 35% vacancy. There is no need for additional commercial space in this area, and believes the ring road is complete around the subject property. STEVE POTTER (4498 Pondview Trail): Asked what the population growth rate is in Prior Lake and the demographic. Commented that in the Windstar development, there are over 35 children under 5 years of age. Suggested a day care facility, or some use that would benefit the neighborhood, or suggested needed school district offices. Believes the property could be a commercial development which would help relieve traffic congestion in the area during non-business hours. Also advised that property values would suffer with a high-density residential development. RYE: Noted that the growth rate is approximately 200 units per year, which translates to about 600 people. Indications are that most people moving into the community are young professionals. PAM GAILEY (4562 Pondview Trail): Concerned about the frontage road in front of EZ Stop and the traffic issues that would be compounded should the multi-family use be approved. Opposed to an additional loss of trees in the area as well. CLAYTON HARDER (4510 Pondview Trail): Practically speaking, it does not seem reasonable to develop such a small parcel as multi-family when it is more suited to commercial. Agrees with concerns raised by his neighbors. BRUCE LARSON (Millennium Properties): Noted that he is working with Northview Development to address the need for senior housing in the Prior Lake area. Noted that the use, while multi-family, would provide a good transitional property at a relatively low impact to the area. KEDROWSKI: Asked what type of senior housing is planned, including design, buffers, ect. LARSON: Preliminarily the plan would be for an unassisted community atmosphere at a minimum age of 55 years. They are only in the beginning stages of design. There are a number of ways to provide buffering, including fencing, berms, etc. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes November 15, 1999 MADER: Commented that in addition to the lack of commercial property within the City, there was considerable discussion and concern with the access to the Tower property being through the EZ Stop, as well as the importance of a ring road that is yet to be resolved. Questioned whether significant effort was given to determine whether a commercial use was viable. Also noted that the issue at this point is not senior housing, and that there is limited availability of commercial land within Prior Lake. The HRA study did not indicate that Prior Lake has a compelling problem in the amount of area zoned for multi-family development. Further noted that with respect to the sewer line, a residential zoning classification does not guaranty a solution to the problem. Believes the bankruptcy of Priordale Mall is irrelevant to this particular discussion. It would seem arbitrary for this Council to approve an action that we have previously denied and that has been unanimously recommended for denial by the Planning Commission. There are, however, many issues that should be resolved prior to authorizing any development of the property. Suggested a moratorium on development on properties potentially affected by completion of the ring road alignment for six months until these issues are sorted out. SCHENCK: Asked the impact of the ring road design change on this property if designated CCC versus a high-density residential. Asked for clarification of the 10 acres concept for CCC designation. Is there anything in the request that would guaranty a senior housing development. RYE: There would probably not be a significant difference in design as far as land use designation. The 10 acres was intended to apply to CCC designations for minimum area that could be designated under that category without reference to the platting or ownership under that designation. It wasn't intended to mean that every property within such an area had to have a minimum of 10 acres, and typically covers multiple properties. The discussion of senior housing is irrelevant for this discussion. The issue is a Comprehensive Plan change without reference to the type of ownership, type of tenant, ect. Once the change is made, whatever use is permitted, or permitted with conditions, or permitted with a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district, could be contemplated for that site. MADER: Clarified that the moratorium would affect all the properties that may be affected by the ring road, and that staff would be directed to determine those properties adjacent to the proposed ring road. WUELLNER: Commented that if a viable commercial use was proposed for this property, the Council would not be considering a moratorium. Asked what is the intent of a moratorium. MADER: Due to the unresolved issues with this property, feels it would be appropriate to manage the issues prior to creating more issues with any type of development or zoning change. WUELLNER: Commented that the applicant makes a viable arguement that the existing Comprehensive Plan designation may not be appropriate. Supports the applicant's request. PETERSEN: Believes the City should address the ring road issues before any further development takes place, Also does not believe many issues have changed since the 1998 application. KEDROWSKI: His understanding on the ring road was that the only issue was whether a parking lot and building would be impacted, and staff was directed to come back with another curve at that access point. Multi-family zoning is less obtrusive than commercial. Used the Burdick property as an example of how transitional zoning is important, and that the Tower property may be able to act as an appropriate buffer. SCHENCK: Pointed out that the residential neighbors seem to prefer a commercial use of the property. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes November 15, 1999 MADER: Noted that the curve of the ring road was only a portion of the issue, and that the ring road was only half laid out. RYE: Clarified that there were two different things: (1) the entire ring road concept from Franklin Trail to County Road 23; and (2) the official map through the Park Nicollet property over to Toronto Avenue. The Official Map only dealt with the center line designation on a map from the Park Nicollet property over to Toronto. The question came up at that point of what happens at the other end, which in turn triggered the discussion about bringing the issue back to the Council at a later date for more comprehensive review. MADER: Stated that the problem with the Burdick property was the removal of a berm, and development within the setback. Advised that a this Comprehensive Plan rezoning is significant in that it sets the stage for what happens next (i.e. changing the zoning to be consistent with the Compo Plan). KEDROWSKI: Commented that the berm and garbage enclosure with respect to the Burdick property were not entirely the issues. The issues were development. PACE: Pointed out that Mr. Huemoeller's reference to sections of the Compo Plan is new information that the Council received tonight and when he cites that something is inconsistent with the criteria for that district, the flip side is that there should be some input on the goals, objectives and criteria for the R-4 out of the Compo Plan. Secondly, it would not be appropriate for the Council to consider the easement litigation with Neil Boderman as a factor in its decision to change to the Compo Plan. Also commented that Mr. Huemoeller's testimony tonight raised more issues, and that this is not a public hearing, and all interested persons and/or staff may not have had the opportunity to respond. Mr. Huemoeller has confirmed that the 60-day rule has been waived by the applicant. Suggested that defering this item for further staff input and Council discussion is an option to consider. SCHENCK: Commented that there are three needs in the City: (1) senior housing; (2) commercial development; and (3) rental units. Would not support the Compo Plan amendment. Also clarified that the school has the option to purchase the property in question. Strongly supported proceeding with the ring road project. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DENY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST BY NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER AVENUE. A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY SCHENCK AND PETERSEN TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT FOR FUTURE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen and Schenck, Nayes by Wuellner and Kedrowski, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-123 Approving the Final Plat and Development Contract for Wild Oaks. BOYLES: Review the agenda item in connection with the staff report, noting that the final plat was subject to six conditions. 5 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 1999 SA JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST BY NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER AVENUE History: Northview Development has submitted an application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation for 2.92 acres of vacant land located on the south side of Tower Street between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of the Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early Learning Center. In 1997, this applicant, under the name Stonewood Development, submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property from the C-CC designation to the R-HD designation, and to rezone the property from the then B-3 district to the R-3 district. The City Council considered the request on May 4, 1998, and ultimately denied the request due to the concern about the reduction of available commercial land in the City. This proposal has not changed from the original application. The narrative submitted with the application notes that the developer has not been able to find a commercial use for the site in the past 18 months. A concept plan for the development of this site, identifying a 54-unit apartment building, has been submitted by the applicant. The applicant has also filed an application for a rezoning of this property, which will not be considered until the Council makes a decision on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, and the property is rezoned, development of the site with a multifamily dwelling will require a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public hearing on August 9, 1999. After considerable testimony and discussion, the 162b)J9f1g~~~~~Jk~'3tO€~:~r~g~'r~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fa!(B12) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission felt the circumstances had not changed appreciably since the earlier request. The development of the new hardware store on Duluth Street north of Tower Street is even a stronger case against the proposed R-HD designation. A copy of the minutes of the August 9, 1999 meeting are attached to this report. This item was originally scheduled for City Council consideration in September. However, at the request of the applicant, the item was deferred until this date. Current Circumstances: The total site area involved in this request is 2.92 acres. The site has an elevation change of about 10' from the east to the west boundary. There are also several existing trees on the site, although no tree inventory has been completed. Any development on the site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Access to this site is from Tower Street, which is identified as a minor collector street in the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Sewer and water service can be extended from the existing services located in Tower Street. Adjacent to this property on the north and on the west are vacant land and the Priordale Mall, zoned C-4 (General Business). To the south are single family dwellings zoned R-l. To the east is Pond's Edge Early Learning Center, zoned R-4. The Issues: The R-HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing and it provides for open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the site, and with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority recently completed a study on the rental housing in Scott County. This study (attached) identified both existing housing and the future need for rental units. At the time of the study (1998), only 4 ofthe 368 rental units in Prior Lake were vacant, creating a vacancy rate of 1.4 percent. According to this study, as the growth in Scott County continues to accelerate, the demand for market rate rental units will also increase. The study estimates an additional demand of approximately 190 general occupancy units and 70 senior apartments in the City of Prior Lake between 1998 and 2003. The Prior Lake Economic Development Authority also completed an inventory of the properties within Prior Lake designated for High Density Residential uses (attached). This inventory identified a total of391.7 acres ofland available for High Density Residential development. Of this total, 26.7 acres are presently zoned R-4 and 1: \99fi1es\99compam\99-050\99050cc.doc Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: AL TERNATIVES: have municipal services available. Another 30 acres is designated for High Density Residential uses, but is presently zoned C-5 (Business Office Park). The remaining 335 acres is located north of CSAH 42 and is presently outside ofthe City's MUSA boundary. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which has not been approved by the Metropolitan Council at this time, proposes a floating MUSA concept, which may make some of this land available for development. Approval of this request will reduce the amount of commercial land available for development by approximately 3 acres. This site is not conducive to large scale commercial development; however, there may be smaller commercial uses that can be accommodated on the site. On the other hand, the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map will provide additional land for the development of High Density Residential uses, which will in turn help to satisfy a need for rental housing in the City of Prior Lake. Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan amendment to the R-HD designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing types and provides for open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the site. The R-HD designation is also consistent with the City's Livable Community goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. Furthermore, the studies completed by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Prior Lake Economic Development Authority have indicated a real need for additional higher density rental housing. For this reason, the staff recommends approval ofthis request. The Planning Commission felt the need for commercial land outweighed the need for additional high density residential land, and that it is in the best interest of the City to maintain the existing supply of commercial land for future development. Attached is a letter from the petitioner's attorney, Bryce Huemoeller, reiterating the rationale for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Despite the petitioner's rationale, the Planning Commission also found that the applicant had not provided any additional information to indicate the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of the property is incorrect. The Planning Commission therefore recommended denial of this request. Budget Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this request. Approval of this request may facilitate the development of this property, and increase the City tax base. The City Council has three alternatives: 1: \99fi1es\99compam\99-050\99050cc.doc Page 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 1. Adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R-HD designation as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R- HD designation as recommended by staff. 3. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City Council discussion. The Planning Commission recommends Alternative #1. If the Council agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second to adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this property as R-HD is required. The staff recommends Alternative #2. If the Council agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this property as R-HD is required. 1: \99fi1es\99compam\99-050\99050cc.doc Page 4 RESOLUTION 99-XX RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, Northview Development submitted an application to amend the City of Prior Lake 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation for the property legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, Enevid First Addition; and That part of Outlot A, Enevid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed m accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 9, 1999, for 16200 ~~~rPet~~fto,R;8~~E~5~i-1~?t~~t,o~1innesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~ga47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER those interested in this request to present their views; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 1999, the Prior Lake City Council considered the application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property to the R-HD designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment along with the staff reports and the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property as R-HD (High Density Residential) is hereby denied based upon the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The supply of available commercial land in the City of Prior Lake is minimal. Approval of this proposal will reduce the available supply ofland by three acres. 2. It is in the best interest of the City to maintain the existing supply of commercial land for future development. 3. The applicant has not provided any information to indicate the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning of the property is incorrect. Passed and adopted this 15th day of November 1999. YES NO Mader Mader Kedrowski Kedrowski Petersen Petersen Schenck Schenck Wuellner Wuellner {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake 1:\99fi1es\99compam\99-050\rs99xxcc.doc Page 2 Staff felt the variance hardship criteria had been met and recommended approval of the driveway width. Comments from the public: Bryce Huemoeller, attorney for the applicant, 16670 Franklin Trail, said the staff report states the facts and asked the Commissioners to approve the variance. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: . Supported the variance at the previous meeting. The hardship criteria has been met. . The DNR letter indicated they were not opposed to the driveway width. Stamson: . Concurred with V oOOof. This is a unique lot with hardships. Kuykendall: . Added it was in the public's interest as well as the individual property owner to grant the variance. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-12PC APPROVING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 39 FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM WIDTH AS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF 24 FEET. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File #99-050 Northview Development Corporation is requesting an amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan for the property located at 4520 Tower Street. ) Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 1999 on file in the office of the City Planner. Northview Development is requesting an amended to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on the property located at 4520 Tower Street. This site consists of2.92 acres of vacant land and is located on the south side of Tower Street, between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of the Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early Learning School. 1:\99fiJes\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999.doc 2 Planning commission Minutes ctL ~ --t;.,- The Planning staff finds the proposed R-HD designation consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. While there is a definite lack of commercial land available, there is also a very real need for rental housing in the City of Prior Lake. The stafftherefore recommends approval of this request. Comments from the public: Jeffrey Gustafson, Northview Development, explained his company has tried to come up with the best use for this property but still felt high density apartments was the best fit. They feel apartments meet the needs of the community blending in very well with the single family homes. They would also put in a park and be part of the neighborhood. Gustafson also explained their management company's goals and procedures. There will also be some underground parking. The developer said they would be willing to meet with the neighborhood and present their proposal. Tom Batchmen, Pinnacle Realty Management Company, stated they are a nation-wide company and he personally has been in the Twin City area for 30 years. Batchmen said he would answer any questions from the Commissioners or neighbors. James Gustin, 4543 Pondview Trail, said he was opposed to the rezoning request. Gustin pointed out two newspaper articles; I) The property owner claiming the land is top commercial property. And, 2) According to the recent city survey citizens of Prior Lake indicated they want commercial property and slower growing developments. Gustin also read comments from the Commissioners from previous meetings supporting commercial development. All comments were against rezoning. Jim Ericson, 4544 Pondview Trail, reviewed previous meeting comments. Ericson said he called the Federal Post Office and indicated the availability of property for their development. The Post Office seemed interested. His feeling was for commercial development rather than high density housing and did not want to see it rezoned. Clayton Harder, 4510 Pondview Trail, agreed with his neighbors. He mentioned the traffic situations and felt there would be a short-cut from the new ball fields through Toronto Avenue creating more congestion. Harder felt the property should stay commercial. Neil Boderman, general partner of the Priordale Mall, responded to the neighbors comments. He did talk to the Post Office who felt the property was too small, but they are looking at a larger site behind the Priordale Mall. Boderman explained the visibility is not good for commercial businesses. He has owned the property for 7 years and has not been able to attract a business and feels the best use for the property would be apartments as a buffer zone between the single family homes and businesses. James Kennedy, 4486 Pondview Trail, is a new resident to Prior Lake and agreed with his neighbors opposing the development. He felt the traffic would be much higher with the apartment proj ect. 1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999.doc 3 The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . Against redevelopment at this time. The commercial property is a greater benefit to the City rather than a residential development. . There is sufficient high density in the area. Other areas in Prior Lake could be better served. . Recognizes it is not an attractive commercial property today, but there are many small businesses who will be interested especially when Coast to Coast is building in the area. . No evidence to change his mind. Kuykendall: . The proposal is very attractive. . Believes the area could be better used as a commercial area. . Spoke on visual impact for traffic flow. . Compliment the owner and public addressing the Post Office location. . Encouraged with the development of the Coast to Coast development. Other businesses may start looking at the area. . Kansier read the types of businesses permitted in the area. . Boderman explained there are no uses that will go back in the area. Visibility is a big issue for businesses. . Kansier explained the mini-storage zoning districts. . Not an unreasonable use to allow mini-storage in the area. . Supports the general principal of commercial property. . Kansier pointed out the high density land available in Prior Lake. V onhof: . Gustafson responded to the issue on the mini-storage and the setback problems with the surrounding districts. The project could not work on the property. . Agreed with the Stamson, that things have not changed significantly to justify the rezomng. . The Commissioners are looking beyond today in terms of development. . Mentioned the Coast to Coast relocation and believes the area will redevelop. . Explained the available land for high density. There is a need for commercial land in the City. . No evidence to rezone. Open Discussion: Stamson: . Commented on the visibility ofthe property. I :\99fi1es\99p1comm\pcmin\mn080999.doc 4 . The City is currently moving ahead with a ring road to develop in front of this proposed property. . Do not rush into changing the district. Kuykendall: . Explained the City has space for high density rental development. . Kansier responded to Kuykendall's question on the Scott County Housing Redevelopment Authority's report. . Suggested the Commissioners should revisit the mini-storage proposal as a conditional use under the Comprehensive Plan. Felt it would be a good compromise for all. . Rye stated that a mini-storage was not approriate in a commerical district. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDINGS STATED BY THE COMMISSIONERS INTO THE RECORD. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go to the City Council on Tuesday, September 7, 1999. This issue will not be a public hearing. C. Case File #99-026 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regulating the use of off-road motorcycles. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 1999, on file in the office of City Planner. In April, May and June of 1998, the Planning Commission and City Council considered the issue of regulating recreational vehicles in the City. A proposed ordinance was rejected and staff directed to develop a new ordinance. During consideration of the last ordinance, one of the primary difficulties was defining and measuring noise levels from the vehicles being considered. Noise monitoring is technically difficult to do properly and the necessary equipment is expensive. There is also the practical difficulty of having the equipment on hand when a violation is observed. The proposed ordinance adopts the definition of a competition motorcycle from the Federal Rules and restricts their operation in the City to property which is more than 1,000 feet from a residential structure or property which is zoned for residential purposes. Questions from Commissioners: Stamson questioned removing or altering the labels from the cycles. Rye responded it would be illegal with modifications and alterations. 1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm080999.doc 5 PUBLIC HEARING tfb, ~q A75D Conducted by the Planning Commission ~Vlh()~~~~' t(,tl \ ~~ The Planning Commission selcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairification or new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or comment will not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE-PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS PHLIST.DOC PAGE 1 PLANNING REPORT PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4B PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _X_ YES _NO-N/A AUGUST 9, 1999 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider a request by Northview Development to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on the property located at 4520 Tower Street. The details of this application are as follows: Applicant: Jeffrey Gustafson Northview Development Corporation 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Property Owner: Neil Boderman 6508 Gleason Court Edina, MN 55436 Size and Location of Property: This site consists of 2.92 acres of vacant land and is located on the south side of Tower Street, between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of the Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early Learning School. Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is identified as C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. This designation is generally characterized by retail shopping centers designed to provide shopping and convenience facilities to a broader residential area. 16200 E~1~1~'i~~~m)\tra~s?E~;9?gIg~c~gke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~)g447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation: Current Zoning: Adjacent Land Use, Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning: Streets/Access: Natural Features: Public Utilities: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting the property be designated R-HD (High Density Residential). This designation is characterized by dwellings other than single family detached houses at densities up to 30 units per acre. C-4 (General Business) North: Vacant land and Priordale Mall, designated C-CC and zoned C-4. South: Single family dwellings, designated as R- L/MD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential) and zoned R-l (Low Density Residential). East: Pond's Edge Early Learning Center, designated as R-HD and zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). West: Vacant land and wetland designated as C- CC and zoned C-4. Access to this site is from Tower Street on the north. The Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan identifies Tower Street as a minor collector street. This site has an elevation change of about 10 feet from the east to the west boundary. The site also includes several trees; however, we have no information to determine how many of those trees are considered significant under the tree preservation requirements. Any development on this site is subject to the tree preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Sanitary sewer and watermain service is readily available to this site through existing mains located in Tower Street. In 1997, this applicant, under the name Stonewood Development, submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property from the C-CC designation to the R-HD designation, and to rezone the property from the then B-3 district to the R-3 district. The Planning Commission considered these requests at a 1:\99files\99compam\99-050\9905Opc.doc Page 2 public hearing on December 7, 1997, and again on April 13, 1998. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request primarily due to the concern about the reduction of available commercial land in the City. The City Council considered the request on May 4, 1998, and ultimately denied the request, once again due to the reduction of available commercial land in the City. This proposal has not changed from the original application. The narrative submitted with the application notes that the developer has not been able to find a commercial use for the site in the past 18 months. A concept plan for the development of this site, identifying a 54-unit apartment building, has been submitted by the applicant. The applicant has also filed an application for a rezoning of this property, which will not be considered until the Council makes a decision on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is approved, and the property is rezoned, development of the site with a multifamily dwelling will require a conditional use permit. ANALYSIS: The High Density Residential designation is characterized by dwellings other than single family detached dwellings; the dominant construction form is attached homes and apartment buildings. The R-HD designation and the corresponding R-4 district in the Zoning Ordinance permit densities up to 30 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan states "this classification is intended to provide an opportunity to create population centers and to accommodate the demand for affordable housing near community activity areas". The Plan also states "the wide range of possible housing styles and development design flexibility make it feasible to form a suitable transition to and from adjacent existing or proposed uses and to relate new development to most terrain and other natural features". The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives which are applicable to this request are as follows: GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage the development of suitable housing in a desirable environment. OBJECTIVE No.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality housing. OBJECTIVE No.2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality residential environments. OBJECTWE No.3: Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the natural environment and the enjoyment ofresidents. The proposed designation is consistent with the above stated goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing. Furthermore, this development is consistent with the City's Livable Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. 1:\99files\99compam\99-050\9905Opc.doc Page 3 The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority recently completed a study on the rental housing in Scott County. This study identified both existing housing and the future need for rental units. At the time ofthe study (1998), only 4 ofthe 368 rental units in Prior Lake were vacant, creating a vacancy rate of 1.4 percent. According to this study, as the growth in Scott County continues to accelerate, the demand for market rate rental units will also increase. The study estimates an additional demand of approximately 190 general occupancy units and 70 senior apartments in the City of Prior Lake between 1998 and 2003. The Prior Lake Economic Development Authority also completed an inventory of the properties within Prior Lake designated for High Density Residential uses. This inventory identified a total of 391.7 acres of land available for High Density Residential development. Of this total, 26.7 acres are presently zoned R-4 and have municipal services available. Another 30 acres is designated for High Density Residential uses, but is presently zoned C-5 (Business Office Park). The remaining 335 acres is located north of CSAH 42 and is presently outside of the City's MUSA boundary. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which has not been approved by the Metropolitan Council at this time, proposes a floating MUSA concept, which may make some of this land available for development. As noted earlier, approval of this request will reduce the amount of commercial land available for development by approximately 3 acres. This site is not conducive to large scale commercial development; however, there may be smaller commercial uses that can be accommodated on the site. On the other hand, the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map will provide additional land for the development of High Density Residential uses, which will in turn help to satisfy a need for rental housing in the City of Prior Lake. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments as requested. 2. Recommend denial of the request based upon specific findings of fact. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff finds the proposed R-HD designation consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. While there is a definite lack of commercial land available, there is also a very real need for rental housing in the City of Prior Lake. The staff therefore recommends approval of this request. The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. ACTION REOUIRED: A motion and second to recommend adopt a resolution approving the amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment designating this property as R-HD. 1:\99files\99compam\99-050\9905Opc.doc Page 4 EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Concept Plan 5. Applicant's Proposal 6. Scott County HRA Study 7. High Density Residential Land Inventory 1:\99files\99compam\99-050\99050pc.doc Page 5 ----------------------- Location of Property 500 o 500 1000 Feet ~ N /",,<9;'~/I.I'I.r"-:'n'l I' I ' I 4--- I 1:;'-1'- 1 ' ~" . l.w,Umr! ; f-foJ;. ffik.!!"fJ;HH~llJl:ll\'f~' .1~tti+H+ ,,~..!..!J.::l~r-r. .l. .!+1 . .\+ .f1-1~1+ +1,1" .,~"H.~:q~. +r;- f=f . '\lJ~I.I.I'I.I'I'I"I' ,!.!.!l!FI" .1.\-1'1'1. H.\.h+"+ ,1"1' · +. +... .. . ...~ ~- --' . ,_ , :!: ~~:I! .l=:::rb'.'"!~~"~"'" I -. i'j- . ,k I . \,:1 1- II 'L'-' I \:H .:!;- ~.It~ ~n~u. L--_ ,- ,! a i :1: - 'I~"'"'I".~I"" 1-. II... . . ~ .... . . ,--_, r. . ., __,' I I ,., ~r-' ~~;, ~~_. - l f=- ,,_. 01..- ~'_. :-' 1 'J IZ~ ;'="'~~ r~l:l:~~';:;- ~ .~~,-~~~c- Ie -=' 1) ~ ~, .: \~. '. ~~lOt 7.~' .t",lo; ". -. i I~ ~\r ..:::' 1\ ut:::e . .. 2 -. - . :... ~.. : . i . \1' T'''U " -, COURT.I ~ .~. .' < ~'"'. . .'-i.,~" j'- . , _~,. ~ l:I.:.:.~'. --', .::~;,:. . i~ ~~.~'.~~:\..',.~~.".~':'~~\~~..~\\." '~';:'"""""':'''''.:'..:.':: \...,'1,1,"', ..... I \.~,".J.; :~j')rf'/': :;; , . ,,=._"~, . ....W>'m. '1'\-- ;...,~ ......A... · .. .L' I. " I ~ "'." ....'Y"'" \sTE.-':,I. (. .. ' _-.- : -"-..-::_~: "tl" ,. ' rl.,;l ~ . ~ ~ , ,,-"- ..-.;::.;::.~ s,,,~~. 'I' ' . L.:..-!' 1"',: \.,:-. /I :-r .,\~ ;:. o. :'......~ ,..~. w ..~, ""'\'~ . yj:.IJ J:iI-......- .~ t:.C ~". ~ ~ ~" ".~"'.... .:." .;:"?). .' ::.:7::-;:. '- ::: . " ~ " , . ..' . <. I" ::..::.., .. : , ...' ~ ","' __._ :.,. ", WI ~~ .....::... . - ,,'" ' . . ...... . .t. .' . ~ :::::1-- -." ?~.. ." . \' . . .' '. li1!!"''$,1- . . .. r:.::;:' . ,.,..' '.;,;-'G ~,,"-,--'..T:q"': '-'-'-'< c-cc ,....>--- .- :....:,' I ~. 'f; . ~~: :~fj ~.\ c-, -'~ :. . ~~.;,: . ....:. . ~g:.'~?J?l}jf/fJi?',7~~.<~'\l ()~~ ~;f#'~~ }!f't;? I"' "':'-''-:-ir-;-l '.;, . W~ . ..' .0 :':"::::: c/.s...:.....~.,\. ... ~. -;,.,:.,,:,-,. :...'t-o..... ~,.'T.,:,:..~.\:\.I.\.~, . ,":::. ~~ :.If.\..':-~: , ~~? ~..t;<:~~-~ . ~~ . ;;AAf.~f~f~~-. i . .,~:lI.:.,......: . ;:=:=. ~ ~ Si . ~~_}..2_. - .. .-.";,.-.-.-....-+0.. ....~. ....: .;.... .' . I:. '"""' ~. ,......,. .. .1' i-it I\'~" - " ~ '.....~ ~ , ~~~' if I ~2:J-~":':'-"" . __'-'~-"J '..-1 '::.~ :ftI'l'1--' .. ,~~ ~ ' / I[ r" ;.l...~, -... - ....<L.~_._::-, I, ~~. ...~-~~YSTAL '6!3;'.,,'.:.. "1 // -=- . fl.=;~/' . ~ "" cooPREHE"'''''' "'''''' ....... _ ,-,NO .... .... \KE ' : ~~. , '2, ,t .:.-. .-:- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS I," ~ I. \. '...:- 0 ' ~__ . R-RD RURALDEHSITY III .:;..- ",1' :o-~, _~ '-.., 0 R-UMD URBAN LDN.TO-MEOlUM DENSITY .- ::: - - - - :..-::t"'" -- i .. .::.::~ -- ...u. ii"- 11:::- I R-HD URBAN HIGH DENSITY I . " ~ 1= ._ ',,-fJ'..;'" 'RIOR LAK.E ~ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN"l CLASSIFICA nONS Q ..,r 0 c-NR RETAIL SH:lPPING (NEIGHBORHOOD) ./ ~ c.cc RETAIL SH,)PPING (COMMUNITY) ~ C.TC TOWN CE~ TER 8 C-HG HDSPIT,t,Ul'Y & GENERAL BUSINESS 8 c.so BUSINESS ,FFICE PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS It '-PI PLANNED oNDUSTRIAL 2' ~ I i PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICA nONS \ m R-OS RECREAn,)N I. OPEN SPACE i i ROAD CLASSIFICATION ....TI..~sP(IItT.TlON""'. \f!l ....Rl'ERlAL FOIl _..UTI! ......, i 8 COLLECTOR l~, j j f '1 " IC-f11iJJ'----' II II Ir' ,'-..,!. . n ....",. ...." l::9 ! i . ~+ ;: !.~ .\.~~ ~ .. " \ ... II " ..\. J . . --~~ ~~ '/ .. ,," ~ or' .. \ I . \. l..?::::,.... \J i. \ Ii .. "( - \ . .' :U-l-i~f~ . ~\ \.. .\..,.\-\' :. .J'J:l, ~ \ "':;,1 . "i~, . ~~~,~ (:;~~~m~ ~~ . ~.~.~/.8~ ~~ . s" H.~~, ,.. _ ~ ~[gj'"'" " t. ..~ I . ~~ .. ,\ . ' , \r.' ..... ,I . .ADO".. \, ~~.-:'K:=--': .' . '.r ~l~ J....' -----E :~~. gH'~ . ~ ~~ ~ . : ~ .';>-..... L..:.-1 . ~'. ~" _1_ ,..r ~.I"."(.Y, ......: I - "," .'I.'t~"'!~ ~"::~ .0 .. ," "".. ~,,~ ft." 1 ..'. I ' ~" i::' ._.' "~M' o-:-/. ""N... : . . . 1 . ~ F .~;:v'~. ~::::- .#. I" ,.;:... ~~ == ~--" ~,. ' ftiMfIInm -c'" h'.. ,..UI ..- ~oU ~ ~,"'" :"..~ ~~ ~~ ......'-..,..... . ~ ,,",, ~:-..; :'00 ~ ~ " ~ \~ ~~=-- ~ .. ~= ~ . ~ ~ == . :::t" = ...),= ...v'" /// .;~"", 'Tl' '" il; ...... ........ ,_to ~~ ~ "..~ ..c. ~ ~ t- .~., ::...;:: 0: R ,...,~ .~ ~ ="~ ~ --. ~~ ~~ ...... ~ . ~ ~'"'"' ~ ..... .....",,'. .1_ ......- i\ ...... l .... -~, \ ,.7'" .......;:..,.';"""'.IK i\ - - - ~ [] ;::::; .~ /E -:':.:" ..... . ~~~ .- - ..- ~ -. ~ It.L.S. -, 1 -, . " . , ~ ( ~\~.':.'\>.. t{. \ ,.., J '\." J' '....r-~. i .!}&= -.. '" . .. '" -.... \f".~:.~ "'NT', ,.' _ "",.' ,.;;:'" ..-_'J' " J ..;t2- ':.,7..'\ ~...:;.-.. ~-' ...~..::.. . , ...:. :"i'.'~..~' ~, \ - 1, ,j! 1- t ~/-I ... -' \ . ,- ' . Cc""" ~ .. ,- ' ,<~ < .. , .0 11.1" -.=r .. " ,', - ~ ~' ' ~ C. ' _ ':..l 7 ....' ' _.... -. " I, ' ' ,. CS""" 39 ,,~ - ... j- I,i!i}'t.... V;" - I=F'f1>- ' ,.' ~ ' " '" ""~ · " ,. .'1''';',' -, r".\ . J_\..~,-~i' .....( . ,~ ~ ___ 11:.1 ,,>-"r--~ " .' ,...r ~-..,.~ ,"'" 1 -:. r~A-'- '-'- / ' ",. "1' ' R' ,,~.~.y" .. ' - Y,"-'- 'i. . ,~\~ ,-,-' ....'.j .. '. .' -4 .,:,'~I>- ~ of.. .. ,._~_.. .--. L--,. ~.I..-=-. l" · " _ , ~, , " <,,/ ~' .' 1:',' · " _=_ ~>- _ ' .. ,', 'J ..... ,.', '\ lJfJ.~-:: ' '", ':.:" S ~~"1', :.. I .:~ ---""'''- ti. ~'. >:~>< =- El* ' 0 -= '"""' ~' , -'*' If" ,D~.L-/;" ,', . :.: .. . ~." .' ~ ..... I.. ~~l __ .OR-4,. .-..:..:. ',' .t J: , ' ' 4;'\.Y:: ' n n -- t !!,,'. ,.., ,I" ,,' ! 1I _.. 1.;11-' '. . .'. '~'., ...'. Y. \'\.. '- ri " , 'j' , ' <l~". ,j' U ".'G ',- ,'. .- \ ''('''-/1'' '-Il, , L '-'--'~ - ~fJ " &,'~~~,::~~;:.~~\~~~~~~~ 'X ~'~t\:\\r---.- {~~~,. ~jR\ ~ :,~' ~~iii>~~ ...r"'j ," ; _......... - ,- -.",- V" r-...~.'" ......- ~. ~V~~ .~~ ~.; "'\' "/"~ "I' ,.u_.....\."/ ~~ . ];?' r_~?' u .' "ffi ,....\..T-"""'t.:\ .-.-~:. Ii..- , ,_ _ ,,,_" .' .'<. 'y ,_' ~ , .:v ,',-'i"!' " . \~~,~ ; ~ 'P". ,,:' - --'f '~ '\. \ ..,... ~ ,YA.-t. . \'1,,-: .': "mt~ .'.. t . . . ~ e ~o$> .' . \1'" . ~~ b... . \"':-'\\. . I 'j .- . ~' I ~~ . ,.,. . '1. .' ~ >. ~.JSr;.<'F )" \~.. . '; . · ~ ___.:::.;: I. _"! ./' CRYST'A T . '. '. [V.Q'l'. -. . \\, , ,/. ,~.. ~ , " . ~ ,""'..' , " ,', 'y.. THE ;;;. " ~- ,", .. """,' '... , ," LAKE:; ': ,<: ,,> ,;,,' ~ ',c.. I ATtI,.ET1C r ~ ~! ~. \. ' i~ ...;.:...: : '-7i!~ \ i __..... ",' :""'" ~ ~ ~.. . -=- t A ~B,' : l~ \. ........... Ll . "~ , ...;;;1.' .... . _, 1::.0_' '~. .... .... ,,-........ · - -............... -1'. ...:,. ",,'. \: -.01:' -~ ~~-.,.--,;;r. ---- ----.-: 1-.. '. '<.1 ~ tI~~ i .- .. ,/ _ '. _ ._' . .... ' ~ ,c' \/.. ' ' · ! . _, __ ,_ >- " ,t' ',J,I' 'Y.' " .. I _ "", ~ ' ,- "nn~I,",' I . ,.,' ,,__/.. .. , " > m: i ~ · 'I ~p~~ "" ~ _ ,.:... t: ~ .,.~' '"' " '.:- ' : ~ ~,' '. .,' \ .. ""i-:S, ZOt!tNGMAP -. I -:."" ~ ~ "... \-'. ..' A R-S :CE] ~:~ R-3 R.:4 C-1 C~2 C-3 C-4 C-5 1-1 pUO' SO :1'- -~.... ---I ; I . :-: i - i ~ -.... p,- . ~ ).gtic1llttll~ .. . . . Rural SubdMsiol'l Residential I..ow Qensity,Residential . LOW to. Medium DenSity Residential . Medium ()e(lSity Residential. High ~nsity R~entia' Neigt1bOftlOOd. commercial ComfT'IUnlty. BtJSineSS SpeCialty Busifle5S Genef"al BUSIness Business Parle.. c;enerallndusUial P\anl'led Unit ~ Shol'eG1nd DIstrict :::J., no ..' }. - .. .~~..::'" ~ ' '~ 61._ .Ih a.'1I -~- -- uptt . _lC$ ....... -... ..... mATtS R.~.S. It I . y ~'$ 'A ~, i : ---....::"" ..- -, , .-t_ "......,. ...... '- \ ( I ---;'T:-f . 'TJ' ~~ i J '" TT' . .. ! i , b.; .- , \-. .,.. It'-----.;M. ,. :~: . -' 7 "-.:r- ' '.' i ~ f. . ...... I 10 I.'.. nl ,~ l'l 'It~ i . . .-~ ",..:~' 1\ \ ......,.. ......... ...... -- ...~...M -'- --- 1 NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 13241 Holasel< Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Tel (612)- 949-2667 Cell (612)-720-7174 City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S. E. Prior Lake, tv1N 55372 RE: Proposed R-4 apartment use on property on Tower Stred near Duluth Street In 1997 we analyzed the property adjacent to the daycare for the highest and best use of this commercially zoned property. We could not corne up with any prospective commercial users, and aller studying the location and needs in the community, we realized an apllrtment use WllS the hight:st and most suited use. City StaIr concurred with this, and concept plmls were developed. We did not foresee any m:ighborhood opposition, llS residentialllpartment units hllve historically made more compatible bulrers between single family homes and commen.:ially used lllnd thlln any conunercial uses. The neighbors did, however, object, and the Plmming Commission and Council agreed that before some of the limited, remaining conunercially zoned land in Prior Lake was allowed to be zoned residential, conunercial use possibilities should be exhausted beforehllnd. This land was always part of a larger part of the Brooks Hauser conunercial parcel, and had this conunercial zoning classilication for some time- while all surrounding land was still farmland. We feel that as the surrounding land was developed, the conunercial zoning on this particular parcel became grand fathered to it, and that if it were presently zoned residential, it would not be allowed to be reclassilieu llS commercial at this time. TIlis land is remote from the highwllY lor both exposure and access, and aller the adjacent bowling alley and bar was allowed to be reclassified to R-3 to allow daycare use, the tlavor of this entire back blo\:k became more residential rather than commercial in use. Over the past 18 months various uses were considered. The City has not been able to refer any commercial users our way. A mini- storage business was reluctantly contemplated, which led to the actual location of the placement of sewer and water lines across the property. This location became difficult for the storage facility design, as it basically utilizes a large footprint. After more analysis, we kept coming back to the realization that the highest and best use for the property is apartments. (As far as the location orthe utility lines, it is coincidental that;the present location does not interli::re with a proposed R-4 building \o\:lltion, as it would with most commercilll multi-tenant contigurations. The lines lidl within what would be realistically a\:\:eptllbk utility easement bounduries lor an R-4 llpartment site pllll\). Two years ago the neighbors has several con\:erns. -They did not really toresee a need in the City lor more apartments. Recent studies now show thllt there is need that our project would till. -They did not want to come home to see hecklers on decks looking down at them, and view people multiplying like rabbits belore their eyes. This would not be the case. The homes would view the end of the building rather than a longer lront elevation, and is considerably quieter and less intruding than most commercial structure users. We worked with our management company to eliminate some of the exterior decks on some of the upper floors to eliminate the possibility of unyone of any age looking down at the existing rear yards." Apartments are relatively consistent in occupancy loads. Family do not usually grow in numbers of household numbers and stay in the same b'Jilding. We asked the neighborhood what uselor our land they would like to see. Although they represented that they felt that any commercial use would be both a better use that apartments, and that any conunercial use would not be objectionable, the only suggested use olrered was that of the continuing use as a play area for their children- where then plllyed then and would like to continue to be able to do so. While we can be sympathetic to this, it is somewhat unrealistic. Our experien\:e is that people are afntid of thl: possibility of future change, but readily accept it when it , happens, and are more content once no additional \:hange is possible in the future. The site plan \:ould otli::r reasonable butli::ring between our proposed building and the residential yards. It \:ould even include playground type areas in this area acceptable to their family members as well as the building residents if desired. This is not totally uncommon. Our project would till a need in the City. Our project would add the key amenity of professional on site management and caretaking to the property. Our selected third party management company spends the!r entire e!1ort toward managing apartments for owners. They do not have any ownership themselves. Management is a full time business. Our buildings are designed for ease of maintenance and management. We do not want to own a project that is hard to keep maintained or difficult to manage any more than the City would want a project that deteriorates and is not manageable. This is not the case with our design. For the past two years we have continued to keep StalTsupport for our suggested highest and best use, and again request a new review of our plans. We request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to allow R-4 apartmentllse on this property. ' .. .:. .:. , . . ~ - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ C\l CO) ..., II li lIt ~I; . ~ ~t ' · t )il ~ Ii I 11 .l, ~ 13; lJ it!} ~ !. I~H II I L____ a i ! ~ I ~i ~I~~ ~g I JiJ!: J~~i ~~~. 1 L ~ I I I I I I I if i n I ii~ ..i S I !I ! II ii!l ~ .J 1 ." I!n t . i i ~ I~ i ~ ;. I I I I ~ I .~ ~ I k~~.u ~i I I I -.11 . i I Ii h' I ~ · 1 " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ou I lil.. " ijIV1S 8 '" " o ~ '" .. 8 Q ! .. '" 0 o .. ! '" .. .. 0 = " ! a 8 <> 1!i .. " = '" .. 8 = .. '" ~ o .. '" .. .. = ~ 5 ;" . ~ ~ = 1 o .. '" .. .. ~ ~ t It " ~ ~ o .. '" .. .. ~ g ~ " 8 = " 0: o .. 8 '" .. 0: .. o .. 0 '" .. ~ .. 0 {} ! I " 8 " 0: o .. 8 '" .. .. .. " c) o .. 0 ~ '" .. ! .. 0 ! ijIV1S " " 8 8 0: " " 0: 0 8 lil 8 8 .. ... 0: 0: '" "'0 "'0 Z z'" z... z 0 0" 0.. 0 ;s> ;J< ;1> ;- --' L i ~ . . . ~i ; , I I Ii ! ~ .-. lh ~jl j h! II ml !~ .~" I i 1 I I II ~ s.1 L ~I 1114: I ~ .I ! ~ I s: L"".~. ~ ;; ~ -- ~o 0 u.-toJ=...n ~-----~--------- r --~: :::::::::_:: ::;: :::~~:: :~- :~~_:::::::~-----~--------- I I : I · .. .. .. . : :. : I _______ ______.J I 1_ ,,: i: II l: I 1\ 1\. I r. I: I" 1\ ~ I . . I I I I I I I I \ \ I \ I I \ \ ~.(1j I I I I I I I , I I I , I I I I I I , I I , I I I I I I I I I ~: ~: .,: i: j: I: II :al ,: ,: ':, ' ~, d t _, ~ I ! : :,A : :,.. : I I ------~--~-----~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I , I I I I I I I I I ________""'___J II 3 I I ! I I 11 :J ! Ii .. . i I ~ ! ~ : j i i ~i!!l ~ j Jill DULU11-1 \ \ -1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Demographic Review . Since households are occupied housing units, household growth is the best indicator of housing demand. According to the Metropolitan Council, Scott County added nearly 6,300 households between 1990 and 1997, surpassing its gains for the entire 1980s (5,866 households). Meanwhile, the County is expected to see increases of roughly another 2,880 households between 1997 and 2000. . Growth in Scott County will continue to accelerate over the next two decades with increases of 12,370 households between 2000 and 2010; and 13,170 households between 2010 and 2020. This rate of growth is three times that of the metro area as a whole, between 1990 and 2020. . The accelerated growth forecast for Scott County over the next two decades is the result of improved access provided by the new Bloomington Ferry Bridge/Highway 169 Bypass, coupled with adjacent communities, particularly West Bloomington and Bumsville, becoming fully-developed. . During the 1990s, 75 percent of the household growth in Scott County occurred in its three larger suburban communities - Savage, Shakopee and Prior Lake. Based on Metropolitan Council's projections, the three suburban communities are expected to account for roughly 85 percent ofthe County's household growth over the next two decades. . New Prague, Belle Plaine, and Jordan also experienced relatively significant gains in house- holds with increases of between roughly 20 and 30 percent projected for the 1990s. Growth in the rural portion of the county has also been strong during the 1990s, resulting from leapfrog development. Overall, the number of households in rural Scott County is expected to increase by about one-third during the 1990s. . The Metropolitan Council's projections shows household growth accelerating in the freestanding communities within Scott County over the next two decades while growth in rural Scott County will taper-off. The deceleration of growth in rural Scott County is based on the belief that managed growth will be enforced in rural Scott County, however, we believe that these figures are likely conservative and that this area will experience greater growth than is projected . Thus far during the 1990's, every age group posted gains. Children (persons 17 and under age group experienced by far the greatest numerical increases, with an increase of just over 5,000 persons or 60.2 percent. The next two largest gains occurred among the 35 to 44 age group, (3,800 persons) and the 45 to 54 age group (2,150 persons), both representing baby boomers. . . Scott County's senior population (persons age 65 and older) also experienced significant growth thus far during the 1990s, with an increase of nearly 1,670 persons (an average of 210 per year). The senior population growth is expected to accelerate over the next five years with the projected addition of 1,475 persons (an average of295 per year). 1 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . As with the age of the population, types of households also affect the types of housing needed. In Scott County, the largest household type categories in 1990 were married couples with children (41% of all households) and married couples without children (29% of all households). The number of households in every household type category experienced substantial gains in Scott County during the 1980s. Married couples without children, however, experienced by far the largest numerical increase, with a gain of over 2,200 households (66%). . The proportion of all households that rent their housing declined from 19.5 percent in 1980 to 18.1 percent in 1990, due to the substantial increase in owner-occupied housing units. Renter households comprised only 15 percent of the County's household gro\vth during the 1980s. . In 1990, the proportion of renter households in the cities of Scott County ranged from 8.0 percent (Elko) to 29.3 percent (Shakopee). Most of the county's householders age 15 to 24 rented their housing (64.2 percent in 1990), while the vast majority (between 65.8 imd 90.9 percent) of households in the remaining age cohorts owned their housing. . Scott County's seniors tend toward renting their housing as they age: 16.5 percent of the householders age 65 to 74 and 34.2 percent of the householders age 75 and over rented their housing in 1990. On the other hand; the 25 to 34 age group comprised by far the largest number of renter households, accounting for 36.2 percent of all renters. . The median household income in Scott County is expected to increase from just under $55,000 in 1998 to just over $64,000 in 2003. The number of households with incomes of $50,000 or more will increase by 25 percent between 1998 and 2003, while the households with incomes below $50,000 will increase by only 16 percent. The substantial increases in income are due to large numbers of baby boomers aging their peak earning years. . According to Metropolitan Council estimates, Scott County will have added about 10,950 jobs during the 1990s. As with employment growth thtoughout the metro area, employment growth in Scott County is expected to taper-off slightly between 2000and 2010, with a projected increase of9,360 jobs, Job growth is expected to slow considerably in both Scott County and the metro area between 2010 and 2020. Rental Market Review . Limited rental housing construction during the 1990s has driven vacancy rates in the Twin Cities to an all-time low. Rental vacancy rates metro-wide were 1.1 percent as of3rd Quarter 1998. . 380 rental units were built in Scott County between 1990 and December 1998. In addition, we identified 20 rental units that were lost to fire or converted to ownership housing resulting in a net increase of about 360 units. Meanwhile, the County has seen an increase of about 7,200 households. Thus, rental housing has accounted for only about 5 percent of the County's household growth between 1990 and 1998. ., MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . Of the roughly 380 units built in the County during the 19905, about 10 percent were subsidized, 40 percent were market rate and one-half were affordable units. . The rental market in Scott County is also very tight. A survey oflarger rental projects throughout the County, revealed a vacancy rate of 1.0, excluding, River City Apartments which was still in its initial lease-up period at the time of the survey. . The following tables sununarize vacanciinformation for both the general occupancy and senior rental projects surveyed. RENT AL MARKET SURVEY SUMMARY GENERAL OCCUPANCY PROJECTS SCOTT COUNTY November 1998 Shakopee Savage Prior Lake Jordan Market Rate Total Vacant Rate 668 7 1.0% 268 2 0.7% 280 4 1.4% 31 0 0.0% 55 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 1.354 13 1.0% Tax Credit Total Vacant Rate ~ 48 0 0.0% 43 0 0.0% 48 0 0.0% 0 0 -- 4 . 0 0.0% 48 2 4.2% 191 2 1.0% Belle Plaine New Prague Total Subsidized Total Total Vacant Rate Units Vacant Rate 56 0 0.0% 772 7 0.9% 17 0 0.0% 328 2 0.6% 40 2.5% 368 5 1.4% 38 2 5.3% 69 2 2.9% 53 1.9% 112 0.9% 57 1.8% 157 3 1.9% - 261 5 1.9% 1,806 20 1.1% * Belle Plaine Apartments is a 25-unit building with a maximum of 21 units receiving HUD Section 8 subsidies; the remaing units fall under MHFA's tax-credit program. Thus. the minimum number of tax credit units is four, but could be more. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. . The general occupancy projects surveyed had 1,806 units and an overall vacancy rate of 1.1 percent. Market rate and tax-credit projects both reported vacancy rates of 1.0 percent while subsidized projects had a vacancy rate of 1.9 percent. . There are currently 10 senior rental projects with 484 units in Scott County. A survey of these projects revealed 11 vacant units, a vacancy rate of 2.3 percent. However, eight of these vacancies occurred at River City Apartments. Excluding River City, the vacancy rate was 0.7 percent. Subsidized senior projects had a vacancy rate of 0.3 percent while the market rate projects had a vacancy rate of2.3 percent, excluding River City. MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. ., ~ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RENTAL MARKET SURVEY SUMMARY SENIOR RENTAL PROJECTS SCOTT COUNTY . November 1998 Shakopee Market Rate Total Vacant Rate 52 8 15.4% 45 0 0.0% 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 42 2 4.8% 139 10 7.2% Subsidized . Total Vacant Rate - 128 0 0.0% 0 0 -- 39 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 35 0 0.0% 91 1 1.1% 345 1 0.3% Savage Prior Lake Jordan Belle Plaine New Prague Total Source: Maxfield Research Inc. Conclusions and Recommendations Total Total Vacant Rate 180 8 4.4% 45 0 0.0% 39 0 0.0% 52 0 0.0% 35 0 0.0% 133 3 2.3% 484 11 2.3% . Demand for rental housing in Scott County was estimated at 1,110 units between 1998 and 2003. General occupancy demand was estimated at 750 units and demand for senior rental housing was estimated at 360 units. . Our demand methodology accounted for household growth (nearly 900 units), replacement need (100 units), pent-up demand (roughly 60 units) and a vacancy rate of5.0 percent (50 units) to allow for consumer choice and unit turnover. . Based on the projected change in income distribution of Scott County residents in 1998 and 2003; we believe that about 45 percent of the general occupancy demand (340 units) will be for market rate projects, 40 percent of demand (310 units) will be for moderate rent units, and 15 percent (110 units) will be for subsidized units. . There is a need for additional general occupancy housing throughout Scott County. The majority of the demand for market rate general occupancy rental housing is in the suburban portion of the county, however, a small market rate project could also be supported in the Belle Plaine-Jordan area. We feel that some mode~ate-rent general occupancy housing could MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. ~ SUMMARY OF FINUINGS be supported in each of the larger cities in Scott County. We also recommend additional subsidized general occupancy housing in Shakopee, Prior Lake, Savage, and New Prague. . There are currently a large number of general occupancy rental projects either under construction and in various planning stages for Scott County, they include: No. of Units 4 32/6 152 24 56 136 56/12 30 26-28 50 Product Type Affordable Affordable/Subsidized Market Rate Affordable Affordable Market Rate Affordable/Subsdized Affordable Market Rate Subsidized Location Belle Plaine Savage Shakopee Belle Plaine Savage Savage Shakopee Shakopee Shakopee Scattered Developer Tom Meger Evergreen Development Stuart Corporartion Bergstad Properties Mary T. Inc. Hartford Financial Evergreen Development Sand Companies Sand Companies Scott County HRA Status under const. under const. under const. planned planned planned planned planned planned planned . There are 152 units of market rate general occupancy housing currently under construction and an additional 198 to 200 units of market rate housing planned for development over the next few years. If all of the planned projects are built as planned, the remaining demand for market rate general occupancy housing through 2003 will likely be satisfied. . 32 units of affordable general occupancy housing are currently under construction; an additional 178 units are planned, resulting in excess demand for 86 units through 2003. . Six subsidized (MHOP) units are currently under construction and additional 62 units are planned, resulting in excess demand for 42 units through 2003. . Based on review of incomes of senior households in 1998 and 2003, we believe that there is an unmet need for an additional 55 senior subsidized units through 2003. The remaining demand, roughly 305 units, will be for market rate senior housing. However, some of these households will need affordable market rate housing options such as those offered at River City Apartments. . Based on the age of the senior base and the supply of market rate senior housing already in Scott County, both independent senior housing and housing with services (congregate and/or assisted living) will be needed. About 35 percent of the market rate demand (about 105 units) will be for service-intensive housing and the remaining demand (200 units) will be for independent senior housing. . Currently there are a number of senior projects either under construction or planned for construction over the next few years, they include: :\1AXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. 5 SUMMARY OF FfNDINGS No. of Units 24 24 42 24 30 29 Product Type Subsidized Subsidized AffordablelMarket Rate Congrega te/Optional-Services Assisted Living Assisted Living Location Belle Plaine Belle Plaine Savage Belle Plaine Belle Plaine Jordan Developer Belle Plaine Lutheran Home Belle Plaine Lutheran Home Scott County HRA Belle Plaine Lutheran Home Belle Plaine Lutheran Home Benedictine Health Services Status under const. planned planned planned planned planned . The two subsidized project either under construction or planned by the Belle Plaine Lutheran homes, if built, will likely satisfy the majority of the county's demand for subsidized senior housing over the next five years. . Between the two affordable market rate projects in planned by the Scott County HRA (River City and the planned Savage project) and the planned congregate/optional services project by the Belle Plaine Lutheran Home a large portion of the demand for independent senior housing will be satisfied. However, demand still exists for additional 82 units of independent senior housing in the County through 2003. . The two assisted living projects planned by the Belle Plaine Lutheran Home and Benedictine Health Services will satisfy 59 of the 105 units of demand for service-intensive housing in the County. Yet, excess demand still exists for another 46 units of this type of housing. However, the development of two assisted living facilities in communities as close as Jord~ and Belle Plaine could create a saturation of assisted living housing in the Belle Plaine- Jordan market area in the short-term which could lead to extended absorption periods and excess vacanCies. . A summary of the distribution of rental demand as well as recommendations for rental development in each community is discussed in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report. . It is important to note that the recommendations presented are to be used only as a guideline for development and should demand be unmet inany one community it is possible that neighboring communities may be able to capture a portion of the stated demand. Furthermore, demand for rental housing is allocated only to incorporated municipalities because they have the necessary infrastructure in place for such high-density development. That is noUo say that demand for rental housing does not exist in the rural portions of the county, but that much lower-density would need to be developed because of the lack of infrastructure. 6 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, L'iC. CONCLUSIONS Ai"ID RECOM.\I1ENDA TIONS These projects have been very successful and a concept similar to this would do very well in Scott County. The recommended unit mix, sizes, and the rent structure are presented in Table 35. A ceiling or market rent could also be applied to these projects with rents similar to those suggested for the adult/few services projects presented earlier in this section. TABLE 35 GENERAL RECOMME~DATIONS SUBSIDIZED SENIOR BUILDINGS SCOTT COUNTY November 1998 Unit Mix 60% Unit TYpe lBRlIBA SizeiSQ.Ft 625-650 40% 2BRl1.5BA 825-900 Rent 30% of AGI Basic $275 30% of AGI Basic S375 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. Summary of Recommended Rental Development in Scott County Table 36 summarizes our rental demand calculations for Scott County by type of project and by community. TABLE 36 RENTAL DEMA1'JD SL')IMARY SCOTT COUNTY 1998- 2003 Senior Market Rate Service-Intensive Independent Market Rate General Occupancy Moderate Rent Subsidized Shakopee 100-110 28-36 G 50-60 Prior Lake 316-324 66-72 24-36 45-50 Savage 3642 28-36 4045 Belle Plaine 16-24 30-36 0 50-65 0 Jordan 30-36 0 20-30 0 New Prague 0 18-24 16-24 0 24-30 340 300 110 135 170 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. l' - -:> MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. RENT AL HOUSING MARKET REVIEW Valley and Countryview Apartments have outdoor swimming pools. The remaining three projects have limited building amenities. Tax-Credit Proiects ~ Currently, there is only one affordable general occupancy rental project in Savage, the recently completed 48-unit Evergreen Pointe Townhomes. The project received funding through Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) Section 42 Low Income Tax Credit program and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority's Metropolitan Opportunities Housing Program (MHOP). Five of the units have been designated as MHOP units and are owned by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Four of the five MHOP units are reserved for families displaced by the demolition of Minneapolis Public Housing units and the other unit is reserved for the Scott County Public Housing program. The tax credit portion of the building includes 16 two-bedroom units and 32 three-bedroom units. The two-bedroom units have monthly rents of $590, while the three-bedroom units rent for $679 per month. The units feature private entrances, one and one-half bathrooms, dishwashers, disposals, central air conditioning, and washer and dryer hook-ups. In addition, a detached garage is included in the rent. Subsidized ~ The five MHOP units of Evergreen Pointe consist of three, three-bedroom units and a (hearing-impaired compliant) four-bedroom unit.- All MHOP units have rents based on 30 percent of the household's adjusted gross income. ~ The only other rental housing project in Savage with a deep subsidy is a 12-unit public housing project owned by the Scott County HRA. The project, which was built in 1980, consists of two-story, three-bedroom townhome-style units with private entrances and detached garages. Rents are based on 30.0 percent of the household's adjusted gross income (AGI). All of the units were occupied and the vast majority of the residents are families. Prior Lake Twelve general occupancy projects were surveyed in Prior Lake. These projects are summarized on Table 16. The 12 projects have 368 units and an overall vacancy rate of 1.4 percent. Market Rate ~ Nine of the 12 general occupancy projects surveyed in Prior Lake were market rate projects. Combined, they have a total of 280 units. ~ There were four units vacant among these projects at the time of the survey, a vacancy rate of 1.4 percent; this compares with a vacancy rate of 2.4 percent in the 1995 study. One project surveyed in the 1995 study was lost to fire and not included in this survey. 71 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. .,C'~ E :~~... ~oo -A _ . C'''9.. ., VI (1) ~ -..J X oor.; C\N I , I",.JN c:lc:l ~~ .., .., VI VI VI N VI VI 00 g'-l p.~~ .. r;o U, ~ ~ (')Q 0'< 3 A n-C o 0" =' x or (') o !" "0 [~ c.., ., ::. ~~ o (') E' . g,O n ~ =-. ., ~ ~ == CJ c.. 0;;.'" :II \0 -..J \0 00 ~O' C\~ AO -l ::1. o = ~o; ~ ~ 000 ~8.. '" o ~ ., -< I - \0 00 o ",- I",.J I",.J- , I I I",.J N- c:lc:lC:: ~~~ ~..,.., -..JC\VI VlVI-..J OOVl 000 ":'1 ~ = == (ii' '" nNN g ~. n "0 = S 00;:.,-6 ~ ~ [ ni ~ ~ 2: ;s: ~ ~ gg'~- 5'01llR> -0:;=", ~ ~ 5 *- ~ -a- ::::: 0 a >~ .0' f5 g ~ 0 5- ::.~o =r. 3 _. _. ::: S" = n ' c' 0' 5 3 ~ =." "0 ~ ~..9. ... 2; g W" ..- c::9:-..J ~ -g ~. "': ~ en ::. en ., t3. g n n ~ a S' g, ($ c.. 0; III ., co 0; (1l !" - C'\;:;- VI~ 0\::' ---i ~. 0 ~g, - > "'''0 -len ., ~ -..J 00 C'\ , . N - C::c:l ~~ I .., EA -..J C\ NO VI 0 - 0 s~i~ O'-E.ng .:- co 9 ., 0-.<'< ~r.;-a-== c..' 1llC. o 00 =0' <r E' 0 . g.g~~ a. a. g ~ '< ~ , ~!!~5 .., - -. J5~a-> o. 0 '" 00 ..3 ?5 5' g,3E:O ;., 5' ~ .. g. F "_" ., :: a. I ~ C;;' .g ;;:0_ l' ~g- ~ ~, rr. O'~ ~; AC. , r. 'JI C'> ~"O ., - ~ '" = ' ~ ... ., ::, \0 00 C\ N A 3:: x' o -. ff ~ ... en g,3:: =~ c.._ ., - 1'11'< = n S -6 o '" ~ o o ..J ~, ~. , 0 o '?iJ. , 5"'" C 0 = ., c.'< ., A ~-C c.. - n I'll S' ~ g,!" ni c.~ ~ ::. ., .. co C ~ ~. 5' > !2.n c . c.o (1) 0 =-= :: ... ... ., 9... ~ "': ~ :1, ~~ "':'10 ~1' 0 n c. - ;- ~ ~ '" > ::- \0 oc: -..J 00 00 N c:l ;0 EA C'\ o o * N - A C'\ 00 I , , N N- C::c:lc:l ~~;O t""" OEA.., :::a~~ 'VIVI .., , -..JC\ NVI VlO , -..J -..J VI o 000 I",.J c. I",.J 0" VI ~.? ?!. C:;>l",.Jg = VI - :.:?!.~ -, I'll ~ ~. en ~ O~ o .'" [ I =-O"cc.":'l ~ s: :: en' 0 o oa ::] :; o . '< '" n-.,CJf".,.) =:sg..cnc :l J5 c; 3 2 g, .Fc:;>g"'~. o_g?Ng:h 1ll0E:~o -::: 9,~;;: ~ .0_ ~ ~ "... "II" '" 'i' !" en 0" 00- A3'? 6> R>~ oo~Ei"(i :;!12 ~ 6> 5 5' < ;-<o...-'~<; g.~~=<::. n~' =.'~ I c..~CI.l~n~, ~~32;c.. ~ ~ ~ ~ E.o::: ~ '" .., 2, =- 0; D _~en~."'~ ~~~N ..<:. o ... :l ., :-' I'll =crc ~g ($ \0 00 A - 00 -..J A 00 A C"" o' oc~ O('l - ., o - ~ o - ., S!:. ~ ~ ~ !":'1 _I",.J NO , I N N + c:l 0;0 t":'l. Z 00 00 , , - - c:l o~ t":'l, ZEA VI VI VI .., -..J , ..,0 -..JO A o , \0 N o .., VI C'\ o , C\ VI VI -000 ~g -;ft.:!; ~ 0' = .'" 0' !il ~~ ~~ '" n =' 0 a:.E - '" r.; 0 . '" N~ 0_ ~c 2: c: ., F Ii og--g 00 I",.J = - 0. --t 0 c='i' "'c:" ';::'CY'~~ -~:! =:~ ;':"':iC ..... ~ :!.. 2. ~ r:... ~5~r;;o;c o.:-'c=-.O" =",E.~O"C: c..~goCJQ'; =-co.,o; n' (1lo;"Olllg~ anc"',<co 00'0::1_- Q..n" ri-o I "0 ~ ~ "0 co ~5, ~ n - E) :. (t.) (iJ :. n 0 '."0.> ~ c:l -6'" !" ~ - r:c:loCl.l::;.0 co t:) 2. 0 =' ., -0- ~ a a: ::; ~ 0' E :::!, S- ~ ~ ::. ; '< ~ ~ ,..... n ~ n" - co = 0" ",' S' "0 .~r; ...=~ ~o p ~ a. s __w !".:n w ~ a: \0 00 -..J C'\ 00 ? - I; ., ;I':" ~ ::0 I; ~ ., o o !:l Z ~ ($ - t"'" o o co g" ~~ CZ ... ~ - c '" -, c ... 3: x' - ;0 g en < ~ o :: o 0' '" ~. ~ w ., s. -, o (') o g ~ I!!... > = ~, 0' '" ::::: o' co ~ ., 1'11' '" .... '<OJ t": 2 ~ "'" > ~ (')0 ~(') o<g 0"': ~;> "'=~ === \ ~ ~<~ 0- - -,... ~"..,~C' \Cl~2 oo>~ ~> ~~ 2 o <' ~ S- ~ ., - ,~ = - w - ,... e t": S cr. N 1 ~ 3:gg ~ 1 "'" I--' !l0 ?f. ""'0 -..J"'" 0> -..JC') - _ N o ~ I 1 I--' N 3:~3:~ ~ . ~ , "'"1--''''"1--' !lo!lo '#. 1 ?f. ""'0""'0 0\....,0\..., e>~> C') C') - - o ~ .... n cr ti !! 0 ~ r;;;" C)....; ~r g C; 0- :: "'0 "'0 0 n ~ - a ~ ~ ~ ~ >3g.> ~ ~ ~ n c:: ~-o In cr.=......,c:r ~(;;:;('l gF:-~ ..... t....J -0 In -g Vt It ;; O:(;~E (i;' n - 0. !!, "'0 ~ ~~=- \.II ., O? 0 ~ g S. * _ _ en I _:=.o c ? 9~ o n o ~ ~:;~ - 00 Co 0\:::--'" ....J~c: o 0 N' ~ 0.0 ('l ('l 0. ., ....J .. cnO :- ~ 2- ... o 3 (D In - \0 00 o I--' 0\ o 0 ":'l ~ ~ (;' In ~ - n e: c: ... (D ? 03: ~ - 2-=:1 o > 3 ::1 ('l :: c ~ e, i'l Iii 2. ~ - -::t "'0 c: ~' t::l ~ In R& !! lno.-' :::. ! ~. n p.. ~ ..., ~ ~ :: 0 o.~ o ., '< o-~ -.....1 v. ~~ ':=.. ~< N 00;- ::=Q'": 2 ('l - > .. - OIl oJ :: V) r')' , ?;' ~N \0-- O\~ ~ oc: _ l".J N N 1 1 l".J N t;:;::: ;:::c 1 1 "'" 4O'l -..J 0- N 00 00 00 3: >c' o ...., ., ('l '" ~ g Iii 2,o2~3: C/).r =. 00 = (D I--' '" nOn' '> :=. c.. ~. ~ S" ~~6~~ (; ~ '? ;:::;.:', ~ ~. c. 0) g; g.~ 5 > ac::o.--::1 !"oo~.0g ~ -n '=' i'l ~!l"=E?- ~ cr- oC:~":'l 3 00 -. g ?~&.., ~~:;n ~ cnncr2l. ~' :; E:. Q 2, :::;.' a '< ::1'< - - n n -< N a~i ~. 0::, :.. _0' S? - == ~ I ,.. .," a. ~ t; ,.:- ~ ~ r. '..J'\ ~.., 0- ., O?;' 1 ~ VlO NO 00. 0> c;'S!. ~~ ~ g- c; ~ ~ ~ \0 0\ o IV 6 l".J o N - 00 1 1 N - t;:;t;:; ~~ 4O'l "'" VI VI VlO 00 ~ :;.. ?J. < ~ n ~ :: n '< ., ~ ~ ~ 00 '#."$. In '" ~ 5' _. lr: ~ <r ~ ~ ~0.....J (; (i;' ~ !l" "8 0 O~~ _Vi ~:;n J, In cr.... :- ~ 0 '0 n~ "'"Ocr cr-= E. c: noo ..C12 ~ s~ a ~ (JQ . (D C 3 ~, .r > c;:ln 0::0 Q=E "'0 _ gO ti' C'\~ ~g \O?;' In o'~ a n a> 0-0 >~ :<e ~ rn E'" 0- I C'\ o In- l".J C'\ _ N N~ 1 1 N - c;:lt;:; ~~ 4O'l4O'l O\~ -..J VI VI 00 VI o ?f. ;> ~ ;:;- Ji' 0.-1--' n ~ ",' .... :: Q:I ... 0 !!.:;-.... 0'<'< 0.- cr (JQ g' c: ~ nO? ~ g ~ ('l _, <; ~~ ~ WN5 ~ ~~. ? C > 2. n Iii - -t::l ~ =E ('l - -N n c;:lg >:-' Ji'- a N S' 06 "'0 ~ - ~~ ('l ...J'" o' ~ - ('l ~~ ~ - \0 -..J o Vt ". NN ~-O\ I 1 1 N-O C::c;:lt:' .:;=:l ~:;=:l 1 I 4O'l4O'l~ ~VI_ epOO 0\ VI o 000 3:: >c. o ...., ff ~ ~ NNO\ 000 '#."$.~ n en ~. o ('l _ C 2, cT5 "2.Qr. ~Ji'Ji' ~ 2: p: !2.!!crl--' ... ... c,) , c:;-_cn .... ~ n 0 ~ - g ~ ff~~ ~S-g :c- o. (i;'::-, ~ n n 0 _ ., o' 0. 00 C ~ (JQ 3 ... -, . 0. jn 5. =E ::r n ..tIJ ...... ~:!. :. n :;: ~ r 0. 0 ;;: _....:l, '0 -0 ,,!., ~ -:: O? ~ S' :: p..~ > sD ~ 0 !ii ~ -.- :l ('l (;PWe: i?-:?g~ ~ :!, ~ :::- ~ !:. ~ Ji' ~ ~ ~ ., ~ !l "'0 ., o ('l !:. - '" ~ t; - " ~. :: C n Co ~ z ~ :: n - r o n a 6' :: c;:lo< C n ::.:~ .... ... I~ ~ ~. 0 ..., ~ s: >C' -- ~ g Iii < ~ n E n (;' In ....J !:: ~ - .. ., o ::1 0' () g ... 3 g Iii ~ .. n g. (S. '" - ":'l (D a ... :; ('l In - () i. ;; Co - C) t:: :z t:: ::::: > ~ ox ji-S :z--.~ ~o-=~ no:::>:;...... == --= 2-:: ::-;:n... ~:::<~ -"'" -e::C -e QO :::::- ~=- ~:z >-: ~> ~~ - .. ::::: o c.. t:: G CI5 tI) o c:: ., n ~ a: C) l< :'l n c: " n II> n C) ., n ::r - ::s ~ * m ~ 3' C) n- o. 0'" '< 3:: C) l< :'l n c: " n II> n C) ., n F' '1:l ., ~, n U o ~ ::s n ., 0. c: ::s 5? ~ In' ::r o 0. In' n 0' II> n n c:: @ a ~ ::s !ii > o - II > .9: c:: II> ii c. o ., o II> II> - ::s n o S n o ., C) :: c. 03 E. l...I 0- DO VI ,...., - :::.. ?f!. < C) n :: (') '< ., C) n ....... tI) c:: 0'" II> Q; ~' n 0. tI) c:: a- o E. A o ,...., to.) v. ?f. < C) C"'l C) :: n '< ., C) ii ....... tr:: tI) C) C"'l C1 ~_ tr:: n (") o r._. c:: . a S. '< ~ ~ '1:l ., ~. n ~ ":'l tI) ., c:: ~ cr ::s II: ~ c; 50 i:r ~~ o a S' c ~ c. - .. A I '1:l (i' l< - \0 -..J \0 A A I l...I t;j " I l...I o ?f. o .... > e tI) 5' tr:: n I '1:l ~ ., a II> to.) VI , l...I VI ~ ~' II> C) :: c. C. n. S' !::. n c. a n U Z ~ n :::; b n E- (5' ::s ~~ C) - ., c:Z - 0 .. . =: 0 II> .... c: ::s a: x' ...... " g en < C) n C> n Ci' II> -3 !:: ~ '" ., o ::l (i' (") o :: 3 n. ::s en ;;; 3 n g. Ci' II> ::::: .J n C) C ., n II> ,...., ~ g - - ;; c. - C) ~ 2 ~ ~ t"'" nO -n "':3n z<c: ~O--=...:l ~_.~>> --=2= =-::::n- ~ -O<~ .... :;:::.. .c::::~=" ~r-2 >0-3 ::r.> ~t"'" --= :::: o c.. ~ Q l'I:l RENT AL HOUSING MARKET REVIEW ~ There are three market rate projects of 40 or more units in Prior Lake, Tower Hill East (68 units) and Tower Hill West (51 units) and Priorwood (48 units). In addition, there are three other projects of between 24 and 36 units. The remaining three projects surveyed consist of a 7- and two 8-unit projects. ~ Five of the projects surveyed (with a total of 155 units) were built during the 1980's, two projects (with a total of 59 units) were built during the 1970's, and two projects (with a total of66 units) were built during the 1960's. ~ Of the 280 market rate units surveyed, six were efficiency units, 98 had one bedroom (35% of all units), eight had one bedroom plus a den, 123 had two bedrooms (about 44% of all units), and 45 units (16%) had either two bedrooms plus a den/loft, or three bedrooms. ~ Monthly rents for one-bedroom units in Prior Lake ranged from $475 to $600 and averaged $525 per month. Two-bedroom units ranged from $525 to $725 per month and averaged $625 per month. Four projects had either two bedrooms plus a den, two bedrooms pIllS a loft, or three bedrooms. Rents for these units ranged from $575 to $920 per month and averaged roughly $745 per month. All of the efficiency units identified in the survey were located at one project, as were the eight one-bedroom plus den units. The efficiencies had rents of $41 0 per month, while the one-bedroom plus den units rented for between $560 and $655 per month with an average of$630 per month. ~ Most of the projects surveyed in Prior Lake saw only modest rents increases over the last three years, approximately 5 percent. However,rents increased more significantly at Tower Hill East and particularly at the Hearthwood Apartments. At Tower Hill East rents increased between 7 and 14 percent depending on the unit, while rents at Hearthwood increased by 22 to 28 percent. ~ The amount and type of amenities found in rental projects in Prior Lake varied greatly from one project to another. Every project surveyed in Prior Lake includes air conditioned units and all but two projects have garages available. While most of the projects have detached garages, both Towering Hill East and West has underground heated parking and Towering Woods Condominiums has attached garages. About half of the projects have dishwashers in their units. All of the projects, with the exception of Towering Woods Condominiums and some of the units at Priorwood (which have in-unit washer and dryers), have coin-operated laundry facilities. Unique features included wood-burning fireplaces in the units at . Hearthwood Apartments and vaulted ceilings at Priorwood Apartments. Towering Hill East includes the largest number of recreational amenities (outdoor swimming pool, whirlpool, sauna, and tanning beds). Tower Hill West is the only project that has tennis courts. A portion of the two-bedroom units and all of the two-bedroom plus loft units at Priorwood have one and three-quarters bathrooms, and some of the larger units at Tower Hill East and Tower Hill West have two full bathrooms. 75 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, L'JC. - -- -- -- - - ..--------- -- RENT AL HOUSING MARKET REVIEW Tax-Credit ~ There is only one tax-credit project in Prior Lake, the 48-unit Kestrel Village Apartments. The project consists of32 two-bedroom units with rents of$680 per month and 16 three- bedroom units with rents of 5720 per month. The project is limited to households with incomes of 60% or less of the County median. The units include wall-unit air conditioners, dishwashers, mini and vertical blinds, and either balconies or patios. Each building has a security entrance and a common coin-operated laundry. In addition, there is a tot lot and 30 detached garages are available for $40 per month. As of November 1998, all of the units were occupied. There is a diverse mix of residents and a significant number of them receive Section 8 rental assistance. . Subsidized ~ There are two subsidized general occupancy projects with a total of 40 units in Prior Lake~ One unit was vacant atthe time of the survey, a vacancy rate of2.5 percent. The largest subsidized project is Highwood Homes, a 36-unit townhome project built in 1980. The project consists of24 two-bedroom units, 10 three-bedroom units, and two four-bedroom units. Rents are based on 30% of the tenant's AGI up to the market rent of$619 for the two- bedroom units, $663 per month for the three bedroom units, and $707 for the four-bedroom units. The two-story units have private entrances, basements, air conditioning sleeves, and laundry hook-ups. The average rent paid by the tenants is $250 per month although one tenant pays the market rent. ~ The other subsidized general occupancy project in Prior Lake is Franklin Trail, a four-plex owned by the Scott County HRA. This project is subsidized through RUD's Public Housing program and tenants pay 30% of their AGI for rent. All four units have three bedrooms and detached garages. . Jordan Data on the six largest general occupancy rental projects in Jordan appears in Table 17. The projects have a total of69 units, all but two of which were occupied for a vacancy rate of2.9 percent. Of the six general occupancy projects in Jordan, four are market rate and two are subsidized. Like Belle Plaine, all of the rental units in Jordan are in smaller projects, the largest being 24 units. Jordan has more subsidized than market rate general occupancy units. Market Rate ~ Only four market rate projects were identified in Jordan, one sma113-unit project that was identified in the 1995 study has since been converted to ownership housing. The four market rate projects have 31 units, the smallest number of the six larger cities in the County. All of the units were occupied at the time of the survey. 76 MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC. , Available High Density Properties (Properties Guided as R-HD up to 30 units/acre) LOCATION ACRES CURRENT LAND WITHIN ZONING USE MUSA 1 17 R-4 R-HD YES 2 4 R-4 R-HD YES 3 4 R-4 R-HD YES 4 1.7 R-4 R-HD YES 5 30 C-5 R-HD YES 6 205 A R-HD NO 7 90 A R-HD NO 8 40 A R-HD NO * 56,7 acres of the properties designated as High Density Residential are located within the present MUSA boundary. The 2020 Comprehensve Plan proposes a "Floating MUSA" which would make most of the 391.7 acres available for development. I:\deptwork\rh properties.xls .. -$- -$- -TO, J:~ . -$- -$- Correspondence L\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC ./ FfLE COpy January 21, 2000 Northview Development Corporation Attention: Jeffrey Gustafson 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 RE: Resolution for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Property Located in Enevid First Addition Dear Mr. Gustafson: Attached for your files is a signed copy of Resolution 00-05 denying the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located at 4520 Tower Street. As you know, the Zone Change Application you also submitted for this property is still outstanding, pending the decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Please let me know how you would like to proceed with this application. You can either withdraw the application or we will go forward with the hearing process. If you withdraw your application prior to publication of any notices, the City Zoning Ordinance allows us to refund up to 50% of the application fee. Please let me know what course of action you wish to take. If you have any other questions relative to the review process or related issues, please contact me directly at 447-4230. Sincerely, +,/.. ~ ~ . ~Q.l~ U ~7~:n~ansier, AICP Planning Coordinator Enclosure cc: Neil Soderman DRC Members 1:\99fi1es\99compam\99-050\reslet.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER filE COpy January 12, 2000 Northview Development Corporation Attention: Jeffrey Gustafson 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Dear Mr. Gustafson: Attached is a copy of the agenda and staff report for the January 18, 2000, City Council meeting. If you have questions, please contact me directly at 447-4230. Sincerely, C.~ ~ansier, AICP 4~~~n~g Coordinator Enclosure cc: Neil Soderman 16200 ~~~e~f~~mft.~~~9sr~'19Wgi~ke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6ftPa47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER December 16, 1999 Northview Development Corporation Attention: Jeffrey Gustafson 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Dear Mr. Gustafson: Attached is a City Council Agenda and Agenda Report for the December 20, 1999, meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230. Sincerely. a. i\'~ J ne Kansier, AICP lanning Coordinator Enclosure 16200 I!~1rl~'~~9~~1.'\~f,~opt~~}f~g{{e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~~~47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER December 16, 1999 Neil Soderman 6508 Gleason Court Edina, MN 55436 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Dear Mr. Soderman: Attached is a City Council Agenda and Agenda Report for the December 20, 1999, meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230. Sincerely, ~Qr"AI~a~ Planning Coordinator Enclosure 16200 E~~~~I'e\-~9~~~~~~?lrJi'?8FLake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6129a47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER rILE COpy November 12, 1999 Northview Development Corporation Attention: Jeffrey Gustafson 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Dear Mr. Gustafson: Attached is a copy of the agenda and staff report for the November 15, 1999, City Council meeting. If you have questions, please contact me directly at 447-4230. Sincerely, ~o.K~ One Kansier, AICP Planning Coordinator Enclosure cc: Neil Soderman ...l:\99file.s.\99c9mpam\99.-asO\acrpt.dqc p~~ 1 16200 t.agle ueeK Ave. :::',t.., Pnor Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61Z) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 1f:'2\ r~.~ (~l:c~; [1 \j] i--'\ r0i '..;\\ \ ..- j> .._, , I ! ,. I[ , \:. t)}; I ! 11.(\ ..dI 9- :\ \ iil\ \ "'" - .11 i \ I 1. \ ~ . ~, l I \'J \\L IV \ JAMES D. BATES BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER Telephone (612) 447-2131 Telecopier (612) 447-5628 November 8, 1999 Prior Lake City Council 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Designate Property at 4520 Tower Street as High Density Residential Dear Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of Northview Development Corporation, the prospective purchaser of 2.92 acres of vacant land located at 4520 Tower Street, in support of its application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of the property from Community Retail Shopping to High Density Residential. PROPOSED USE Northview proposes to construct a 64 unit market rate apartment complex on the property. The project will have underground parking, limited amenities, on-site full- time caretakers, and professional management. mSTORY OF REQUEST A similar application had previously been considered and denied by the City Council in 1998, primarily due to concern about the reduction of available commercial land in Prior Lake. Since that time, Northview has attempted unsuccessfully to find a viable commercial use for the property, such as professional offices, low density retail, brick and tile distribution and sales, welding or similar fabrication facility, or a mini- storage facility. In general, these efforts were unsuccessful because the property is not visible, has limited access, requires an excessive setback from the adjacent school use, and has been severed by a public sewer line. Based on its 18 month investigation, Northview is convinced that commercial use of the property is not economically viable now or in the foreseeable future. Prior Lake City Council November 8, 1999 Page 2 The Planning Department evaluated the current request and in its Planning Report of August 9 recommended approval because the proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and there is a documented need for quality rental housing in Prior Lake. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on August 9. Numerous neighbors appeared and testified in opposition, the common theme being the desire of the neighbors to have commercial property and business activities next to their homes. The Commission members ultimately recommended denial of the request, saying in essence that circumstances had not changed significantly since 1998 to justify a reduction in available commercial land in Prior Lake. After the Planning Commission hearing, Northview met individually with 4 of the 5 Council members. For the Council members who expressed concern over designating the property as High Density Residential, the principal reason was the reduction of available commercial land in Prior Lake. NOT A VIABLE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Northview would ask the City Council to consider the following factors that relate to the viability of preserving the property at 4520 Tower Street for future commercial use: . 4520 Tower was originally zoned commercial because it sat on the City's south boundary next to Priordale Mall. At that time, there was no other use for the property, because the adjacent land was either undeveloped township land (south boundary), a bar/bowling alley (east boundary), or the shopping mall. There was no reason to consider transitional or buffer zoning because the adjacent W oodridge Estates single family areas had not yet been annexed into the City or developed. However, the situation today is much different, and the need for transitional zoning between the adjacent single family uses and a future busy commercial area will be important. Good planning requires buffers between low density residential and nearby retail and commercial uses. The City's recent experience and litigation with the residents of Boudin's Manor is an example of the failure to provide an adequate transition between business and low density residential uses. Prior Lake City Council November 8, 1999 Page 3 . The rezoning of the adjacent school property from commercial to residential has the affect of increasing the side lot setback from 20 to 60 feet. As a result of that change in zoning, the options for commercial use of 4520 Tower are further limited. This issue was not considered in 1998. . Since 1998, it has been discovered that a public sewer line crosses and severs 4520 Tower. Although the existence of the sewer line effectively precludes many commercial uses, a sewer line will not interfere with the apartment complex that is proposed for the property by Northview. This was not considered in 1998. . Since 1998, 4520 Tower has become much less competitive as a commercial site because of other development that has occurred in and around Prior Lake: - Shakopee has opened a major retail center at Marschall Road and STH 169 that draws customers from Prior Lake and its market area; - Savage has opened a major retail center at CSAH 42 and STH 13 which draws customers from Prior Lake and its market area; - Savage has opened a new light industrial park on STH 13; - Savage is amending its comprehensive proposals to designate the west McColl Drive area for mixed use commercial and business park developments. - Scott County has rezoned land at STH 13 and 282 for light industrial and commercial development; - Prior Lake has rezoned 58 acres of land at CSAH 21 and Revere Way for business park development; - Prior Lake has approved commercial developments on CSAH 42; - The Mdewakanton Community has expanded its commercial area and has added retail and mini-storage facilities. Prior Lake City Council November 8, 1999 Page 4 . By any reasonable comparison, 4520 Tower is presently not, and in the foreseeable future will not be, ripe for commercial development of any kind. This is verified in part by Northview's actual experience over the past 18 months. However, the same conclusion is reached by applying the economic and financial analysis recommended by the Urban Land Institute in its various handbooks for shopping center, office, business and industrial park developments. The ULI says that market analysis is a crucial component in the development of property. That analysis requires an evaluation of the community's economic base, demographics, transportation system, amenities, development climate and projected demand for the end product. The ULI recommends "an analysis of competitive [commercial] facilities in [the] metropolitan area in...." A critical factor in the analysis is "the local cost of living and housing, and the variety of housing and neighborhood types." Based on the standard set out in the ULI handbooks on commercial development, this property is not and will not be ripe for commercial development within any reasonable time period. . While the Planning Commission referred to the new Coast-to-Coast building as evidence of commercial activity in the area, another recent commercial project in the immediate neighborhood gives a much different view of the situation. The Park Nicollet Clinic was recently constructed on a site that was intended to be the start of an aggressive commercial development in Prior Lake. In fact, after the construction of the initial building, no further significant activity has occurred because of both economic and political factors. Most importantly, the construction of the new Park Nicollet Clinic did not become a catalyst for economic development in the Priordale area (as Planning Commission members say the new Coast-to-Coast store will do), even though the clinic has highway visibility and better access. . The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority completed a study on rental housing in Scott County, and found additional demand for approximately 190 general occupancy units and 70 senior apartments in Prior Lake between 1998 and 2003. This study was not available in 1998. . 4520 Tower was not selected by the Postal Service as the site for the next post office. In fact, the parcel selected by the Postal Service lies between 4520 Tower and the Priordale Mall, and will effectively sever the property from the adjacent commercial uses. Prior Lake City Council November 8, 1999 Page 5 BENEFIT TO PRIOR LAKE The requested Comprehensive Plan amendment has immediate and tangible benefits for Prior Lake. · As stated in the August 9 Planning Report, the proposed designation is consistent with the objective of the Comprehensive Plan to offer a variety of housing in Prior Lake; and is consistent with the City's Livable Community Goal of providing affordable and life-cycle housing. · There is a documented and recognized shortage of quality housing for seniors in Prior Lake, and this request will allow the construction of affordable market rate rental housing that will be of benefit to our senior population. · The requested change will allow the immediate development of a quality project in a difficult area of Prior Lake that will otherwise remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. · The development of 4520 Tower as an apartment site will facilitate prompt resolution of the pending sewer line easement dispute. · The request will allow the City Council to consider the rezoning of other areas within the city that have better visibility and access to commercial use. Based on the foregoing, it is the request of Northview Development Corporation that the City Council approve the request to designate the property at 4520 Tower Street as high density residential in the comprehensive plan. Sincerely yours, ~~ BDH:dw cc: Northview Development Corporation _._. ~. _.~. r-; \'\ /l ; "'--: Ii WAIVER OF 120 DAYS MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 15,99, A COPY OF WHICH IS AITACHED, REQUIRES THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ("CITY") TO APPROVE OR DENY A ZONING RELATED APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIVING A COMPLETED APPLICATION. THE CITY MAY EXTEND THE TIMELINE BEFORE THE END OF THE 60-DA Y PERIOD BY PROVIDING YOU WRIITEN NOTICE. THE CITY RECEIVED YOUR APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND DETERMINED IT WAS COMPLETE ON JULY 15. 1999. ON JULY 15.1999, THE CITY PROVIDED YOU WITH WRIITEN NOTICE THAT IT WAS EXTENDING THE TIMELINE FOR REVIEW AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. 1999. BY LAW, ANY EXTENSION BEYOND NOVEMBER 15. 1999, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE APPLICANT. YOU HAVE REQUESTED/AGREED TO AN EXTENSION BEYOND NOVEMBER 15. 1999, THE REASON FOR THE EXTENSION IS AS FOLLOWS: YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE DEFERRED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1999. BY SIGNING THIS WAIVER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE: A) RECEIVING A COPY OF MINNESOTA STATUTE SECTION 15.99; B) THAT YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THIS WAIVER AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THAT YOU MAY WANT TO REVIEW IT WITH AN AITORNEY; C) YOU HAVE AGREED TO THE EXTENSION; D) YOU WAIVE ALL RIGHTS UNDER MINNESOT 15.99. DATE: '1..--l \".... '1 ~-ro ~~ SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT: PRINT NAME OF THE APPLICANT: 1:\99files\99compam\99-050\waiver,doc September 15, 1999 Northview Development Corporation Attention: Jeffrey Gustafson 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Property Located in Enevid First Addition Dear Mr. Gustafson: It has come to my attention that you have requested that this item be deferred until the November 1, 1999, City Council meeting. As you know, State Statutes require the City to act on an application within 120 days unless you waive this requirement. By continuing to defer this item at your request, this time period is nearing its expiration. In order to avoid a problem with the expiration of the 120 day period, we are asking that you sign the attached document waiving the 120 day period required for action by the City. If you do not return the signed waiver by Thursday, September 23, 1999, we will reschedule this item for the October 4, 1999, meeting. Please let me know what course of action you wish to take. If you have any other questions relative to the review process or related issues, please contact me directly at 447-4230. Sincerely, Q. ~/\ "':H' ~nSier,A:C~~ Planning Coordinator Enclosure cc: Neil Boderman DRC Members 1:\99files\99cQmpam\99-050\waivelet.doc P~ge 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FILE COpy September 15, 1999 Northview Development Corporation Attention: Jeffrey Gustafson 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Property Located in Enevid First Addition Dear Mr. Gustafson: , I: It has come to my attention that you have requested that this item be deferred until the November 1, 1999, City Council meeting. As you know, State Statutes 'require the City to act on an application within 120 days unless you waive this requirement. Sy continuing to defer this item at your request, this time period is nearing its expiration. In order to avoid a problem with the expiration of the 120 day period, we are asking that you sign the attached document waiving the 120 day period required for action by the City. If you do not return the signed waiver by Thursday, September 23, 1999, we will reschedule this item for the October 4, 1999, meeting. Please let me know what course of action you wish to take, If you have any other questions relative to the review process or related issues, please contact me directly at 447-4230, Sincerely, (), U~ AH;l nA. ~nSier, A:C't"""",",,-,- Planning Coordinator Enclosure cc: Neil Soderman DRC Members 1:\99fi1e~99cQmpam\99-050\waivelet.doc PRge 1 16200 Eagle creek Ave, S,E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER WAIVER OF 120 DAYS MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 15,99, A COpy OF WHICH IS ATIACHED, REQUIRES TIlE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ("CITY") TO APPROVE OR DENY A ZONING RELATED APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIVING A COMPLETED APPLICATION, TIlE CITY MAY EXTEND TIlE TIMELINE BEFORE TIlE END OF TIlE 60-DA Y PERIOD BY PROVIDING YOU WRITIEN NOTICE. THE CITY RECEIVED YOUR APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND DETERMINED IT WAS COMPLETE ON JULY 15. 1999. ON JULY 15. 1999. THE CITY PROVIDED YOU WITH WRITIEN NOTICE THAT IT WAS EXTENDING THE TIMELINE FOR REVIEW AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS UNTIL NOVEMBER 15.1999, BY LAW, ANY EXTENSION BEYOND NOVEMBER 15. 1999. MUST BE APPROVED BY THE APPLICANT, YOU HAVE REQUESTED/AGREED TO AN EXTENSION BEYOND NOVEMBER 15. 1999. TIlE REASON FOR TIlE EXTENSION IS AS FOLLOWS: YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE DEFERRED FOR CONSIDERATION BY TIlE CITY COUNCil.. UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1999. BY SIGNING THIS WAIVER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE: A} RECEIVING A COpy OF MINNESOTA STATUTE SECTION 15,99; B) THAT YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THIS WAIVER AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THAT YOU MAY WANT TO REVIEW IT WITH AN ATIORNEY; C) YOU HAVE AGREED TO TIlE EXTENSION; D) YOU WAIVE ALL RIGHTS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE SECTION 15.99, SIGNATURE OF TIlE APPLICANT: PRINT NAME OF THE APPLICANT: DATE: 1:\99files\99compam\99-050\waiver.doc .. Article 18 DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION Section 1. (15.99) (TIME DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION.) Subdivision 1. (DEFINITION.) For purposes of this section, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory of home rule charter city, county, town, or school district; any metropolitan agency or regional entity; and any other political subdivision of the state. Subdivision 2. (DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE.) Except as otherwise provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request. Subdivision 3, (APPLICATION, EXTENSIONS,) (a) The time limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the 60-day limit starts over if the agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing, (b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires the approval of more than one state agency in the executive branch, the 60-day period in subdivision 2 begins to run for all executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all required information is received by one state agency. The agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state agencies whose approval is required. (c) An agency response meets the 60-day time limit if the agency can document that the response was sent within 60 days of receipt of the written request. (d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur before the agency acts on the request, and the time periods prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law, or order. Final approval of an agency receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes of this paragraph. (e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if; (1) a request submitted to a state agency requires prior approval of a federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city, county, town, school district, metropolitan or regional entity, or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a state or federal agency. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the required prior approval is granted. (f) An agency may extend the time line under this subdivision before the end of the initia160-day period by providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. Section 2. (EFFECTIVE DATE.) Section 1 is effective July 1, 1995, and applies to any written request submitted after that date. 1:\99fi1es\99compam\99-050\waiver,doc CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 ~ To: Jeffrey Gustafson Northview Development Phone: 612-949-2667 Fax phone: 612-949-2683 CC: Date: September 1 5, 1999 Number of pages including cover sheet: % Lj. I From: Jane Kansier Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Phone: (612) 447-9810 Fax phone: (612) 447-4245 o Please comment REMARKS: o Urgent 18I For your review 0 Reply ASAP Attached is a waiver form and cover letter. The original will follow by mail. Please return this signed form to me no later than Thursday, September 23, 1999. If you have any Questions, please contact me at 447- 9810. A HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAil POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 JAMES D. BATES BRYCE D. HUEMOEllER September 1, 1999 Telephone (612) 447-2131 Telecopier (612) 447-5628 Mr. Frank Boyles Prior Lake City Manager 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 VIA FAX and US MAIL RE: Northview Development Corporation - Proposed Amendment to Comprehensive Plan for 4520 Tower Street, Prior Lake, MN Dear Mr. Boyles: This letter confirms our request to have this matter considered by the City Council on September 20, 1999, rather than September 7, to give the applicant an opportunity to discuss the request with the individual council members. Sincerely yours, ~~~ \. --- Bryce D. Huemoeller BDH:jd cc: Northview Development Corporation 08/26/99 22:27 FAX 6129492683 JEFFREY GUSTAFSO ~01 NORTHVlEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 13141 Holasek LaDe Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Tel (611)- 949-2667 Mtffj-lJo g..? Cell (612)-720-7174 August 12, 1999 Suesan Pace Campbell Knutson Suite 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Drive Eagan, MN 55121 via fax 651-452-5550 RE: Prior Lake rezoning request Dear Ms. Pace, We appreciate your supportive comments toward our apartment site plan for the land we still have under contract, but at the same time we must wonder if we are fighting too much of an uphill battle on this site. If possible, we would like to meet any or all of the council members ahead of the council meeting date to review the site and answer their questions ahead of time to give them ample time to review and digest our proposal. Due to the neighborhood opposition to development on this site, and the previous and current planning commission denial to rezoning, we want to make sure if we go ahead to Council that the Council members are given ample time to think through oUI request thoroughly- Perhaps more than a halfhour presentation by Staff, neighbors, and us is not enough time given the predetermined opposition to rezoning in the past. We want to make sure that if there is a final stop to OUI team's involvement in this parcel that we did put our best efforts fOlWard, and that it was not due to us not presenting OUI project correctly or timely. The planning commission simply said that nothing has changed during the past eighteen months, and unanimously voted to leave the parcel commercially zoned, stating a desire to keep as much commercial land as possible in the City. There was really no reason for us to be there. Suesan, if we can meet with the members ahead oftime, we can point out several issues to them for their ponderance prior to the meeting: . If Prior Lake wants to fiU their presently vacant commercial buildings (new as well as the older developments), new housing brings the people necessary for the need for new or expanded businesses, and is the needed catalyst for this. They have to build a cart before seeking a horse. "If we build it (commercial), they will come" does not work in this marketplace. . Scott County HR.A has identified a definite need for our rental housing. Although there is other acreage slated elsewhere in the City for multi- housing, it is not necessarily available now to fill the needs of the market or the city. Further, there is no guarantee that it will be either in the future. 08/26/99 22:27 FAX 6129492683 JEFFREY GUSTAFSO ~02 . TIlls site is not a commercial site- plain and simple. This is truer noW with R- 4 day care use adjacent to us rather that a commercial building. United properties will not even accept a listing on it if it is to stay commercial; it bas no possibilities for highway exposure (now or future), and sits adjacent to a day care in a failed commercial building that the City gave up on as being viable for commercial possibilities. The site is perfect in size and zoning for the new Post Office site- the U.S. Postal Department will not add this to their list of acceptable parcels due to the negatives oflack of visibility, etc, that makes it a non commercial site. The only offered commercial use for our parcel suggested by Planning Commission was our previously discussed mini-storage, which is more industrial in nature, and certainly not a commercial activity that would induce other nearby development. Recent ordinance change no longer allow even this low end commercial use. . Our project is more upscale than some of the existing rental projects nearby, and will enjoy better management and maintenance situations that we can point out. We agree neighbors should protest the addition of other projects if maintained along the same standards. Our proposal is good for the site, the surrounding commercial area, and the City. Our standards will raise the competitive standards of the existing multi housing as well. We feel strongly that the highest and best use for this back parcel is multi- housing. This use may well be the catalyst for new activity in the commercial uses around the Priordale Mall. Ifthe Council meeting will be the same stressful situation as the Planning Commission meeting, where there was no chance at all to change anyone's desire to develop this dead site for any use other than a low end commercial (industrial) use, and to be confronted by neighbors that have no real desire to see the site professionally developed, we would like to know ahead of time so our energies and team efforts can be put to use on viable possibilities. Without even one member of the Planning Commission offering even a hint of residential possibilities for this site, we simply do not see the necessary development climate there to get the approvals we need. Personal interfacing and site visits with the council members is something we have done in other cities, and have found this to be helpful. If you could pass on this offer on our part to the appropriate people, we would appreciate it. Very truly yours, NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Jeffrey Gustafson ~.,~",___,:,,,,~~,,,_-_,_,;,,,,,,,._,,,,_,,, """'''''''';'''':'_..._..<-''_....1._ ...", ..'~.-,.".aul__ "_-'_""'."-_"""__<___~"'_"_ >. '."-~,~ FilE COPl July 15, 1999 Northview Development Corporation Attention: Jeffrey Gustafson 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 RE: City of Prior Lake Review for Application Completeness for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change Request for the Property Located in Enevid First Addition Dear Mr. Gustafson: On July 15, 1999, the City of Prior Lake determined all of the necessary submittals for the above applications have been received. This letter serves as your official notification that the applications are now complete. The DRC will now begin formal review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. At this time, you are tentatively scheduled for the August 9, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. I will notify you of any changes to that date. The City review process can be substantially less than 120 days, and we intend to move this matter through the process in a timely manner which provides a complete, professional review. Occasionally, however, due to meeting schedules, it is sometimes necessary to extend the 60 day review period. This letter also serves as your official notice that the City is extending the 60 day deadline for an additional 60 days from September 15, 1999 to November 15, 1999. As you know, the City Zoning Ordinance, 91108.808, states "no request for a zoning change for property affected by a pending request for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment shall be processed until the request has received final action by the City Councilor is withdrawn by the applicant". Therefore, we cannot process your application for a zone change at this time. You have two options available. You can either withdraw your application until after the Council has acted on the Comprehensive Plan, or you can sign the attached document waiving the 120 day period required for action by the City. If you choose to sign the waiver, we will start the 120 days upon the action of the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. .J.:\99,file~99cQml1am\9Q.-QQO\6.Q.dayletdoc Pa~e 1 16200 cagle CreeK Ave, :::>.c" Prior LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Please let me know what course of action you wish to take. If you have any other questions relative to the review process or related issues, please contact me directly at 447-4230. Sincerely, ~Q,~ l)ane Kansier, AICP Planning Coordinator Enclosure cc: Neil Soderman ORC Members -" 1:\99fiJes\99compam\99-050\60dayletdoc Page 2 . ~ Planning Case File No. 91 - 65'D Property Identification No. ~~ ~O)~c, -DO 3-() City of Prior Lake c;ts - a10 ~ -DO<l- { LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. I Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (anach additional .0 Rezoning, from (present zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired) to (proposed zonin~) ~ Amendment to City Code,~r City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit o Variance o Other: c. h ~.,.J~ 'fA R- ~ Iv ~()~ Ae/il\~""''X <AS~ .0l.i6t-;~ C. -CL r("D~ 12..- H-D Applicable Ordinance Section(s): ~},.L6W Applicant(s): N Address: Home Phone: Property Owner(s) ITf different from Applicants]: 5.,. ..~ Address: & ~ rnJ..J S Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ~ Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): A rt.;c:..k.cl- 4 .-Istj To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I ave read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that appl atio will ot be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. 1.... 12-11 D"~ (, J 11 Date i THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DA TE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc Date CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 (612) 447-4230, FAX (612) 447-4245 RECEIPT # 34583 DATE:~Jz..) "fl Received of .,. dollars the sum of for the purpose of -f/' Invoice # $ o?f),OO y lG~ m . ., ~i ~i 31 ~i ~I ~I ., I 753~~~ilO ~ I JC ~ ~~l:, , ; ,i!JtCf 7 -- l '1... '""<1 ~ c:.Jl) $ ?3ZJ- ,f/!, . ff1=."= State Bank of Long Lake 1964 WEST WAYlATA BLVD. 473-7347 LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 55356 ~ Il"UV ~- ~~ lJl. jQf~ ]' -.- .~ liP ~"""" ...) ._.___.____~~--..P- - -~ ----..,-"'- -- ---- ._----- -----. - Lot 1, Block 2, Enevid First Addition; and That part of Outlot A, Enevld. First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247,34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39,82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379,84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316,39 feet to the point of beginning, Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 13241 Holasel< Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Tel (612)- 949-2667 Cell (612)-720-7174 City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Proposetl R-4 apartment use on property on Tower Street near Duluth Street In 1997 we analyzed the property adjacent to the daycare t'or the highest and best use ofthis commercially zoned property. We could not corne up with any prospective commercial users, and aller studying the location and needs in the community, we realized an apartment use was the highest and most suited use. City Stall' concurred with this, and concept plans were developed. We did not l'oresee any neighborhood opposition, as residential apartment units have historically made more compatible bullers between single family homes and commercially used land than any commercial uses. The neighbors did, however, object, and the Plmming Commission and Council agreed that before some ofthe limited, remaining commercially zoned land in Prior Lake was allowed to be zoned residential, commercial use possibilities should be exhausted beforehand. This land was always part of a larger part ofthe Brooks Hauser commercial parcel, and had this commercial zoning classification [or some time- while all surrounding land was still farmland. We feel that as the surrounding land was developed, the commercial zoning on this particular parcel became grand [athered to it, and that if it were presently zoned residential, it would not be allowed to be reclassitied as commercllll at this time. 111is land is remote from the highway t'or both exposure and access, and aner the adjacent bowling alley and bar was allowed to be reclassified to R-3 to allow daycare use, the t1avor of this entire back block became more residential rather than commercial in use. Over the past 18 months various uses were considered. The City has not been able to refer any commercial users our way. A mini- storage business was reluctantly contemplated, which led to the actual location ofthe placement o[ sewer and water lines across the property. This location became ditlicult for the storage facility design, as it basically utilizes a large footprint. After more analysis, we kept coming back to the realization that the highest and best use for the property is apartments. (As tar as the location ofthe utility lines, it is coincidental that; the present location does not intertere with a proposed R-4 building location, as it would with most commercial multi-tenant contigurations. The lint:s lldl within what would bt: realistically acceptable: utility easement boundarit:s for an R-4 apartment site plan). Two years ago the neighbors has several concerns. -They did not really foresee a need in the City for more apartments. Recent studies now show that there is need that our project would till. - They did not want to come home to see hecklers on decks looking down at them, and view people multiplying like rabbits before their eyes. This would not be the case. 111e homes would view the end of the building rather than a longer front elevation, and is considerably quieter and less intruding than most commercial structure users. We worked with our management company to eliminate some ofthe exterior decks on some of the upper floors to eliminate the possibility of anyone of any age looking clown at the existing rear yards.. Apartments are relatively consistent in occupancy loads. Family do not usually grow in numbers of household numbers and stay in the same b'.lilcling. We asked the neighborhood what use for our land they would like to see. Although they represented that they telt that any commercial use would be both a better use that apartments, ancl that any commercial use would not be objectionable, the only suggested use ot1ered was that of the continuing use as a play area for their children- where then played then and would like to continue to be able to do so. While we can be sympathetic to this, it is somewhat unrealistic. Our experience is that people are atraid of the possibility of tuture change, but readily accept it when it happens, and are more content once no additional change is possibk in the future. The site plan could oller reasonable bullering between our proposed building and the residential yards. It could even include playground type areas in this area acceptable to their family members as well as the building residents if desired. This is not totally uncommon. Our project would till a need in the City. Our project would add the key amenity of protessional on site management and caretaking to the property. Our selected third party management company spends their entire enart toward managing apartments for owners. They do not have any ownership themselves. Management is a full time business. Our buildings are designed tor ease of maintenance and management. We do not want to own a project that is hard to keep maintained or ditlicult to manage any more than the City would want a project that deteriorates and is not manageable. This is not the case with our design. For the past two years we have continued to keep Staff support for our suggested highest and best use, and again request a new review of our plans. We request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and an amendment to the Otlicial Zoning Map to allow R-4 apartment Lise on this property. - "'~----' --"-~;j~~~-f"- .... I;~'" "-""--""";-' ."...--- ........ ..._M... ~ ~i; 'Il ~iiS III ~ ~~ l 11 IJ. o .3; lJ ji!l ~ !. J~~ L"".~. , 1 .. ~ ~' I ! ~ j I~; ~! ~~ I -.11 ~ , Ii h, I ~ . a 1 ~. I a ~ , - . . ~ ~ : - - - ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ C'l C') ~ L ---------.j,"..r.-ii;-...- ......_,..... iA; il~ ~ I;! 11 ,J! 8 ~3; JJ ji!l ~ !'l~~. .1 " ~ 8 ~ ~~u llj.... " ijlV!S 8 '" " 0'" ... .... 8 <> lD '" ! o '" ... .... lD " ! 8 <> '" o '" " ... .... 8 lD '" ! o '" ... N lD ! ~ ~" o '" ~ ... .... lD ! ~ " ~ ~ 8 '" o '" .... .... lD 0 8 g ~ " 8 " '" o '" 8 .... N a: lD o '" 0 ... N ~ lD 0 <> ~ " 8 " '" o '" 8 .... N lD ~ '" c) o '" 0 " ... .... ~ lD 0 ~ ijlV!S " " 8 8 a: " " a: 0 8 ... 8 8 lD lD ... '" a: .... ';18 "'0 z ~~ z 0 OlD 0 ~" ~"- ~. IT I 1 I ILN~-~_ i ~. I ~ll V ~ Ii Ii: II ~ - i j i I~ L LEGAL Lot 1, Block 2, Enevid First Addition; and that part of Outlot A, Enevid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1 st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot I; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105,18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning, Together with that part ofthe south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension ofthe westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. Northview Development Corp. Case #99-050 Comp Plan Amendment L:\99FILES\99COMP AM\99-050\LEGAL.DOC ~,i~ti ,,~: ~;~ ~~i ~, (:s ~~~ ~~i ~:; " ;l'~ ., . o ~ 8 I! II II II I.! eTA :1'", il ,J III, -', Iii \ : :::, . :\\!'\\. 1/ i \\~ i . ~: i \ t~\ \};~:~.~__-------__ \ _~'\.'~ ''., :;;--- . DULUi"n ST --..... . ,I' \. '~\\~\ e\.~:.r-: c_:--~~ \,; ~s\ f~,~\,l:\\. 'i'. y. ''f.~ ".\ "... '-", ". ,', VJ.~c_%\ ,\.\ \ I,.\_~S:'.:: _, \1, ....: '.. , ~~l'~~.~~~",>,;~;f'Jl~~t:~\~\~:,~>_ ill:-:_:~if; u_+('L":\>_?-:-~ --~;J t!~" W:. . '01 ' ' ,. ","'--." .. -'-. ., . J ,. ,~.,. \ y' " "\"""~'~ Ii, i,:/ G;"lri~~~~~:~~~~~T~~\~\Y~~~;:~~'~~ I. :1' "'-1"" '. I .. -"- ,.." , .-.... : .>'~",e,' ," :; I ',. ~ l\~ ..;-~.,---__.._ ; ~/'-'\. v~,..'" ~\J.,\~\\\;~.J>\\:, I ',I'''''' !' " '>> '. .)"- ~... '> ,""'~ ,8,. , " .1, ,I a> ,.' \ \'),_ "', - -: - - . ~ \ ~.. 1; 'I . ~ I "" (,., 1j,' ~ 'c.. , J l' -~ j (.- - ~ --;' ,-.,,~_.., < "\.. ::. ' \'~;. I ..;1 .~\.. ; L ; ( \.., _ ~ . u) , ~ 1,1 . : ' - -.' '-- , ~~ \' J' ,~"' . ..... / \... .'i- ~ +1 ..>"1_.... ~ 1~ :~ ----, \';:j'- "-;--- -- f 1 l--! ' "I\\"~Jl:~'!..'1 ,r, , \E, ': ~ ,-{'-~~ ' ' "=CL.~ \fll;~ ;;31' ~ i~J ~.-it .-/ ~" , ~ ~ -- -1 '-\ ,}~ rfl. -r;'q ~.I !_~ i "\-:;.t--------------------------......-,,~ 111 --i, r _l.....: <. ' :, 5 OO.14'OC." "If 40006~ ''!! .10: i I ~,s ':::::'--'" '~i ' . .. "md"'" ,,..., , .'~!; Ii! . ,.1 ".~ !'i,; i) ..... ....... 1 . )ji.tt, \ :... .- -j~~." '~ iI t'"," i_l~ ",,'">,~, '--. .._ _4..}_J ~ .. i , ! ~ \ , i -c::--z --roRON.TO----. .... AVENUE .... \, .~\ U-_~ lj:1/~.\, '1 J ~'jl lIJ-- TOPOGRAPHIC SlJRY"Y ---n-::'.;;,:::;:;;"~.::..."::..;: I; ~ !j" ...... ~] - 111".' , L ._~ I .:;' ~"';,':"'. -- ;:'~'.: ':."':' I I . I-)! (~7HV:EW DE~ELOF~~~_CDRPOR~~I~_..-....--'! ]1 s......., c......,.:.... .-__....0\'1... ~r:rJ.t::lk~ ~11>-.,1-MTfI "-,~ --;:-,'7 -":'---:',.-:--.-7'-:--~f:":_~~.~ lid I i~ ~ I; I II !g s i3 I 'Jlm1 ~ !- I~H r II IiI ~{ I So ~ Ii Jj : ~ J j ! I s: L~".". ~ Hi I . : J o__~___~~_~~~_______~_____~_________ --~---~~-~;;~--------~-----~--------- . . . . .. .a-.aI , , l: , , 0 , azUl , , z-.. I -~~ I ...<.. , "'Q.Ul I I I , , , I , I I I I I I , , I I , , I ...' I .' ~I " i: 1, J: I: II II I: I: I :: J i i r' -, I ., ., , I (~ I I I I I , , , , , I _______-1__ .-;------~ , , , I I I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , I , I I ----____.I.___J 1 · ]I .t ! ] ~ ':l . f I ~ ~ ~ ::; i . j ~ 8 Ii i - l! I i I I 1I \/t.\'\\.Jt. DULUTH ;>:. \ \ \ \ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 4520 TOWER STREET An application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change for the property located at 4520 Tower Street, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, and part of Outlot A, Enevid 1 st Addition, APPLICANT: Northview Development Corporation 13241 Holasek Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 CONTACT PERSON: Jeffrey Gustafson 720-7124 SITE INFORMATION PID#: 25-269-003-0 & 25-269-004-1 LOCATION: This property is located on the south side of Tower Street, just west of Toronto Avenue and east of Duluth Avenue, directly east of Pondview Early Learning Center. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) PROPOSED R-HD (High Density Residential) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: C-4 (General Business) PROPOSED ZONING: R-4 (High Density Residential) DISTRIBUTE TO: APPLICATION FOR: x Frank Bovles X Grea IIkka Administrative Land Division X Bret Woodson X Sue McDermott X Comprehensive Plan Amend, X Ralph Teschner Jeff Evens Conditional Use Permit X Paul Hokeness Lani Leichty Home Occupation X Bob Hutchins Verlyn Raaen X Rezoning X Don Rve Doug Hartman Site Plan X Jane Kansier X Fire Chief Preliminary Plat X JenniTovar X Bill O'Rourke PUD DNR - Pat Lynch Minneaasco Final Plat County Hwy, Dept. Watershed Dist. Variance MNDOT Telephone Co, Vacation SMDC Electric Co, Triax Cable Met. Council Date Received 7/12/99 Date Distributed 7/15/99 Date Due 7/23/99 Complete Application 7/15/99 Date Distributed to 7/15/99 DRC Meeting 7/29/99 Date DRC Publication Date 7/24/99 Tentative PC Date 8/9/99 Tentative CC 9/7/99 Date 60 Dav Review Date 9/15/99 Review Extension 11/15/99 I :\99files\99compam\99-050\referral,doc Page 1 I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change) for the following: Water City Code Gradinq Sewer Storm Water Siqns Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access Parks Natural Features Leqal Issues Assessment Electric Roads/Access Policy Septic System Gas Building Code Erosion Control Other Recommendation: _ Approval Denial Conditional Approval Comments: Signed: Date: Please return any comments by Fridav. Julv 23.1999, to Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator City of Prior Lake 16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Phone: (612) 447-9812 Fax: (612) 447-4245 I :\99files\99compam\99-050\referral,doc Page 2 ,> I I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change) for the following: J Water City Code Gradina ./ Sewer Storm Water Sians ZoninQ Flood Plain County Road Access Parks Natural Features leaallssues Assessment Electric / Roads/Access Policy Septic System Gas Buildina Code Erosion Control Other Recommendation: L Approval Comments: Denial _ Conditional Approval Signed: ~ ~c{)~-t Date: I /7-( I Please return any comments by Friday. July 23.1999, to Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator City of Prior lake 16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior lake, MN 55372 Phone: (612) 447-9812 Fax: (612) 447-4245 1:\99files\99compam\99-050\referral.doc Page 2 ~- CITY OF PRIOR LAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE, on Monday, January 18, 2000 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a proposal to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for the approximately 2,92 acres of property located on the south side of Tower Street, west of Toronto Avenue and east of Duluth Avenue, directly west of the Ponds Edge Early Learning Center. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Map from the current C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential). Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Enivid First Addition; and that part of Outlot A, Enivid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line ofa roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing. The City Council will accept oral and or written comments. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230. Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake MAILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS JANUARY 6, 2000. 16200 E~~~~lei~~'1?1J\~~\~f~O~?i~~O~~~Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612jg447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Location of Property ?i I~ 500, o 500 1000 Feet L N " AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) of the City of Prior Lake County of Scott, State of Minn" esota, being duly s om, says on the ~ day Of~r' she served th~ attache4 li t of persons have an interest in the ~ ~ t wTOwflL ti - by mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an velope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties. Subscribed and sworn to be this day of , 2000. NOTARY PUBLIC L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRMIMAILAFF.OOC CITY OF PRIOR LAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE, on Monday, January 18,2000 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a proposal to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for the approximately 2.92 acres of property located on the south side of Tower Street, west of Toronto Avenue and east of Duluth Avenue, directly west of the Ponds Edge Early Learning Center. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Map from the current C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential). Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Enivid First Addition; and that part of Outlot A, Enivid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247,34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105,18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of2,547.98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379,84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing. The City Council will accept oral and or written comments, If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230. Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 2000. 16200 E~~~~lei~~~~~~~E>.~otyrl~~<t~~~'iv1innesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~j!!fJ7-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) of the City ~~rior Co ty of Scott, State of Minnesota, b~ing duly sworn, says on ~e ~ day < 1999, she serv~d e attached list of persons to have an mterest m the ' V".{;()J ~.... -rCf1'oS bymailingto em a copy thereof, enclosed an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties. Subscribed and sworn to be this day of , 1999. NOTARY PUBLIC MAILAFFD.DOC PAGB CITY OF PRIOR LAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET You are hereby notified that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE, on Monday, August 9, 1999 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a proposal to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for the approximately 2.92 acres of property located on the south side of Tower Street, west of Toronto Avenue and east of Duluth Avenue, directly west of the Ponds Edge Early Learning Center. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Map from the current C- CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential), Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Enevid First Addition; and that part of Outlot A, Enevid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300,00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105,18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547,98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39,82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379,84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316,39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing, The Planning Commission will accept oral and or written comments, If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230, Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake Mailed on Friday, July 30, 1999, 16200 ~~~r~ls~'g~~o~e:.n~!~5~~~~5~~e~orelinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6{zig4h-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF PRIOR LAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER STREET You are hereby notified that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE, on Monday, August 9, 1999 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a proposal to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for the approximately 2,92 acres of property located on the south side of Tower Street, west of Toronto Avenue and east of Duluth Avenue, directly west of the Ponds Edge Early Learning Center. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Map from the current C- CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential). Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Enevid First Addition; and that part of Outlot A, Enevid First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51,99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105,18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547,98 feet and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379,84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning, Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should attend this public hearing, The Planning Commission will accept oral and or written comments. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230. Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake To be published in the Prior Lake American on Saturday, July 24, 1999, ~:\99filxs\99coI]lpam~2,.05.Q\99050pn.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle LreekAve. S.t., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Available Commercial/Industrial Properties Land with Commercial Zoning and Utilities Location Acres Current Land MUSA Agricultural Green Zoning Use Preserve Acres Section 1 Waterfront Passage 4,5 B-P C-BO Yes I t t Section 2 South i Park Nicollet 6.8 B-3 C-CC Yes Envid 1 st Addition /1.93,\ B-3 C-CC Yes Envid 1 st Addition 2,52 B-3 C-CC Yes Envid 1 st Addition 1.99 / B-3 C-CC Yes Brooksville 2nd 1":'3" B-3 C-CC Yes Rademachers 1 st 3.3 B-3 C-CC Yes Rademachers 1 st 0.4 B-3 C-CC Yes Rademachers 1 st 1.11 B-3 C-CC Yes L2 Busse 1 st Addition 0.88 B-1 C-CC Yes Section 2 North Block 9 0.32 B-2 C-TC Yes 0.48 B-2 C-TC Yes Section 10 Triangle Car Wash 1.2 B-1 C-NR Yes Section 12 Deerfield Industrial Park 58 B-P C-BO Yes Section 26 Wensmann Property 35 B-P C-BO Yes Section 30 James 1 st Addition 0,81 B-1 C-NR Yes v t:rames 1 st Addition 0.81 B-1 C-NR Yes Section 36 Norex Property 0.97 B-1 C-CC Yes Total Acres 122.3 I:/econdev/econdev/avaland.xls Page 1 Available Commercial/Industrial Properties Land without Commercial Zoning and with Utilities location Acres Current land MUSA Agricultural Green Zoning Use Preserve Acres Section 26 Vierling Property 95 A-1/C-1 C-BO Yes Yes Section 27 Jeffers Property 60 A-1/C-1 C-BO Yes Yes Section 28 NE Corner 42 and 83 15 A-1 C-CC Yes NW Corner 42 and 83 35 A-1 C-HG Yes Total Acres 205 I:/econdev/econdev/avaland .xls Page 2 Available Commercial/Industrial Properties land without Commercial Zoning and without Utilities Location Acres Current Land MUSA Agricultural Green Zoning Use Preserve Acres I I NORTH OF C.R. 42 I I I ! I i Section 21 SE 1/4 (Petersen Property) 120 A-1 C-CC No SE 1/4 (Gerold Property) 40 A-1 C-CC No Yes SW 1/4 40 A-1 C-NR No Section 22 SE 1/4 40 A-1 C-BO No Section 23 SE 1/4 (Vierling Property) 30 A-1 C-BO No E 1/8 of designated Yes commercial exp 12/30/01 SW 1/4 20 A-1 C-BO No Section 24 SW 1/4 (Vierling Property) 30 A-1 C-CC No exp 3/3/01 Yes SW 1/4 (Vierling Property) 100 A-1 I-PI No exp 3/3/01 Yes I:/econdev/econdev/avaland.xls Page 3 ~I ~ ~I \~\..\.:~ ~"~..' ,:. , . \ . . ,-' ~ ... ..'.i '?J "f ~ . .\. II it' f "oJ) ',/ ~ . . ,:~"' . .< UPPER PRIOR LAKE & ....=.- =""='" ... ... RICE LAKE -r...-:' . rP"~ ,n -=-*:"'" t-:-:-:,I u ITI1TITIT"I'I'rl;;I'I'ITJ.;~"T..1111 I _..,. . . '~Ri ..~_.' ....~ ;DJI~f1 .. ~~I l'I'I'rJ.I.'~I,.'F! ~'I'I'I't'I'I;:'~. . -.~"" , E: ~'~' ,'.. " . ~ ~ I'! f.~ I nil! ,~~- ~+r*I'H+.H. r' '!'i".I?"'r/;' ' . . ~',j.-j- :':~'ti: _ - 1- -.- .. - -.. , "'CO " I~~. -=- ;=:;.. -- ~ .' --- I . ~I:~~ .::.. ~:, ~T'./:"":'- ; .=-:-:=- S ~.=- .... If - i - ' ~4~~~<~1"\'f''''''''':::, ~ .~. ,: ~. ~r. ... . !R-4 . h :~~') .' . ''I,' .j, ~I · ~ ....,;f..r:.. ~.. .- ~ ',.. ~ - ...;-,.rr - - -. . ~f<).\. . ~.. \ . ..... . , -.:.~.( x' - [(I 11 ......=--- II .. ~ ~. ~ ~ C:.J ~_ ... ::0-" . _.. ""-"'- -..:.:., - .' : ; j'~~ 2- 7l' \ -.,..:,-""",:" . .0 ~ _ \ I:::r - 8 - """". <->., ... h'" -.=-I~ r' ." ..,:.' :., }~. .... :: :P-fl~~~" ,.' ?"/- ~,f- ~=Ir- " ";-y..... i' ,. · ., AH;9 "l";\,', ,-:; -" I~ .'j"" ,., \, I" ....\..\ ~ ~ r.. r .~I-:- 'i~~T<'" .' , .:': \~:. ~ -\~\:?: ~L''= I!..:;. i. .. ur..~+ -:- ,/ ~ , 11 -4 ..,l:~ - 't::=l . -' -~_. y r~/''::''~ I ~ ~~,_:'_J ~"-= + ,;,. ,'r- .. _ .. .. . -.. "/ r --..... " "r.:... . . . . . __ -=- ..-1-:- - ~ .- .!~,;.. .... .';'.' :\=\' .- "..f:l,I'1~L'S " - ,,~r,-:)'.' ~ ~ - .~ . ,"\,' ." \ ~r.u ~:O;lSj' . - ... -:s :;!;;:~" -4~ 'I f --=-;- ~ ~'~. '. . " ,". . ~ .'J~" . . ~ ......... -'V" I.. ~f -- oR-4 \. ' '''\~' .'... .~ 0......~[l:',~ ~' , - 't {:-4-' t_- -.c::)'I~:'~ ~ . l. . ,..' " f.\ .~. ~~. '''''''IV ~ .., " ' '" ..', ' '~A..;1 . :~'~:Yl\. . -.. I '~-lr\J~7i.~ "b~~.' ' .' 1-/ f.n]. "~. :', .~:. ~.~... ~ I--"'~''!l~l.' ~"'~. . /' ~ ;'? ,;~,;~'.~, . ... ~ . ..~. . ,-'-, . ...: I Ill;.;;;; \ IY-" . . ~ '."'~~r:F :..u.-:~ ,. ,;..\ -- .......r. ~~ F"O:- . 7:$ ~.' -, ".. :j,~~.i\.> fi"~ l;Y. ~~" ~ - -:;.';:;{-n\ \~- )~~...~ I · :: "j:l-"4- =- ~~" '. ." f':; ~~.;t '. _ ..' .'j - ,.. .i". ...-A. -.. . }- ,'f ..-_' . ~ ~.. I. ~,-.;;: '.-- ~~~..~ . . ,'-- ~~~ !} ._n '.~ .' .. y~", .\ ' -=:"1:...0-..'~' . ~ . ~ '; ~ ' , __ \ . '(l~... ~'. . ! ',' L .1. "" . I" . .. ~ ' .~~ .......... ~. ~do ._" i' \ ",.." . "'-i'~ ""'--)' ctjl.." "1'),'" . I ~" __ I.... Ij .' "' ~ " . .t' ~ '. . ". ______.: Ii _~ / CRYSTAL .', " ""!'...,'''' -, '\\" ./' "'" '. i , ;.;,...;;.. ! . ~", \ ~.' . .'.."....:::--: , THE- iiii_ LAKE' . i ,. rJs' .. . .' '-:- ATHLETIC CO ~ -- I "" j fJ p': i. \.' ~.. "..' r:. ~('f!:: '.~ ~~... @R'~l~, II ~i' I "~" t ., . ../. .)., .. I II". " '.f' ~ I.:.- . ~. , ..om \ ~ V 1 <Pt. ..~ -.,:..- b ~ :; Ell .~, K. \ ....:::- · \.,,\," ="_~~_7_~=-e-- 1-..' F:7W~ ;;:......,~i - '" "'-". ::: ....": ~:~ .:','.!''ll:r-;).l':.... '. " ,,' _ , " --l,r-;-' -)"'. . I <', .~ ." 'I, 'iL;!~!1..;- - . '.0.....,/ . - (..; " ,':'~I...::..' I' . / - . ,,A'\:(:""I ' ' ,:--,roocacOih . L . . , . - · I ., _.... ___ ; ..,. . .,.'. T . : ~ '. - lJ1t;::' ~- '" -. ., --.,.: , 1 .' '~J ~ .~ " ~ ,i ....... 0:-'" ...... t.' ...."~. i .. l;...... .o,_~j:'" r '~'<. '''\. '~ ..-~ ~. .. '.ZONlNG MAP ~ ,. ...," ,..- ,..NS '-J -- p'- _._WItI .-. ., I , . ~~~'.; I, ' , , " I A R-S JCE] ~:~ R-3 R.:4 C-1 C~2 ~ C.J C-4 C-5 1.1 P\JO' . SO AgricrJIttJral ' . . Rural SuodMsion Residential low Qensity.Re$idential Low to,MeaitJm Density Residential . Medium Density Residential High De~ity R&sidential Neigt1bor1lOOd. Commercial COO1tTlUOlty .StJSineSS Specialty 8tJsinesS G<<leral BUSI~ Business Park, GenerallndUSUlal Planned Un<< QeyeIopmeflt ShoreSand Dislnd p -~ -.." ..... . o/,tCKS ...... .c."" ...... ESTATeS .c- .."....ac -... j , 1 II, ~, S. 121 r : .....~.-.t1 ..- . ;:~,;-. i r ~ -..- ....... i." ,d ! 1. I --- I ! , f ' .~ 't ;-~ r -. ::]' 71; .. h! , .~ .. :/' . - r~-~/: ....... . 1. --' ...... ~~:~' ( 1"\ _w_ -... I -- ... --::.. -..M 1 -,- - -. . r0 Q/ ( G~ ~~oo o/v u :-_~.~,~J~~DT>~fr~~~ . JU 2 ~ I@I RADIUS REPORT ORDER NO.: 06012770 WALSH TITLE & REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. does hereby certify that it has made a search in the office of the County Recorder and the County Treasurer in and for Scott County, State of Minnesota. The following is a list of names and addresses of owners within 500 feet of legal stated below: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 2, Envid First Addition and Outlot A, Envid First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, except that part of the said Outlot A contained within the following described tracts: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota described as beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, 300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now know as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18 feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet, and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. NAMES AND ADDRESSES: . ~ristopher and Nancy Caskey ~7055 Mushtown Road p~or Lake, MN 55372 0uane Jorgensen 17121 Mushtown Road Prior Lake, Mn 55732 ~ther Ryan ! 7011 Mushtown Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 vEu es and Carole Sexe 7025 Mushtown Road :fuor Lake, MN 55372 . oger and Linda Olson 17041 Mushtown Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~mothY and Marlene Moen ~44 c pondview Trail SE Pr or Lake, MN 55372 . Jef ~ey and Gretchen Parks 44 3 pondview Trail SE P or Lake, MN 55372 ric and Kimberly Martins 4497 pondview Trail SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 )G egory and Janet McKush ~1 Pondview Trail SE pr' r Lake, MN 55372 ugene and Linda Sellner 4525 pondview Trail SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 JJames Gustin r 4543 pondview Trail SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 jJeff Gerdes . 4565 pondview Trail SE ~ior Lake, MN 55372 vI~~ hael and Denise Mansfeldt 1 060 Toronto Avenue rior Lake, MN 55372 and Cheryl Hazel Toronto Avenue SE Lake, MN 55372 ISusan Wilson \/ i. 7090 Toronto Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~C1ayton and Yeda Harder 4510 pondview Trail SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 v1?ennis and Lisa Stier 4526 Pondview Trail SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~ames and Angela Ericson 4544 Pondview Trail SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~ames Kraska 4562 Pondview Trail SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~eter and Dawn Rau 17010 Toronto Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 r'atrick Bauer 17026 Toronto Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~ames and Karen Kennedy 4486 Pondview Trail Se Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~teven and Margit Potter 4498 Pondview Trail SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 0ami Schriener 17025 Toronto Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~~omas and Mary Haugh 17041 Toronto Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 T~ne and Andrew Whiting v17057 Toronto Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 v{eon Karg 17077 Toronto Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~k Hennen 4666 Oakwood Circle SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~y and Evelyn Kjos 17077 Mushtown Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~inden and Karen Schommer 17079 Mushtown Road ~ior Lake, MN 55372 t/Debra Ginkel 4396 Maplewood Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55732 ~rles Schmaltz 4436 Maplewood Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55732 ~harles and Shirley Kadrlik 4426 Maplewood Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55732 ~rl and Nancy Johnson 4416 Maplewood Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55732 ~rence and Yvonne Schmaltz 4436 Maplewood Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55732 ~wrence Schweich PO Box 1214 Lakeville, MN 55044 ~ow Dee Corporation Hwy 13 Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~liday Station Stores, Inc. 4567 80th Street West Bloomington, MN 55437 vWetterlin, Inc. 1060 Toronto Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~rst National Bank Shakopee 380 Marschall Road Shakopee, MN 55379 /Marquette Bank - Shakopee v/ 380 Marschall Road Shakopee, MN 55379 ~iordale Mall Investors ~570 West 77th Street Suite 150 Edina, MN 55435 ~ooksville Limited Partnership rJP? Box 47656 Plymouth, MN 55447 SRMM Investments 1000 Lyn Way Hastings, MN 55033 New Century Construction 23545 Cedar Avenue Far.mington, MN 55024 Neil Boder.man 6508 Gleason Court Edina, MN 55436 Ci ty ',of Prior Lake 16200 ~~e Creek Avenue Prior L~e, Mn 55372 Wensmann Realty 1895 Plaza Drive Suite 200 Eagan, MN 55122 Wen sma 18 P Suite Eagan Homes, Inc. aza Drive o MN 55122 Scott County C/O Hwy Engineer 600 Country Trail Jordan, MN 55352 Dated this 21 day of June, 1999 at 7:00 a.m. WALSH T~ I // BY ,l-'/' Authorize GERALD CHRISTOPHERSON UCENSED ABSTRACT~ STATE OF MINNESOTA EST~ERVICES, INC. y (l. (It (,J ...1 I') . .' ,... I~ I~ ~~il t~. $:1 ..,I (h u:i. - .- - ...... - ... -- - - -- .- ... - - - - ........ - ....... ... - - - =-- - - ... - -- = - c.....c..:;:.c.. 0'>1 0 I'll C lJoC:t'-{I' l:lOQC~ ))Ol'll~'" 2 ZZ:l; <tll to' :I1'lI1'lI~ 2IJ20 li)- U1Ctlf.::U: U1tllC.l'lIlf: UJ J:aZIJ. U1):1Zt1-.: 1lJ<1111Tl,\; 1111 :Ill\; ..0 C UJ ,J:: ..0 n; () :l- e e :Xl m CJl CJl (") o :Xl :Xl m (") ::! o Z :Xl m p C m CJl -I m e "01-' ::1.0\ o t\:) ... 0 ~o ro r;p ~ to 3:ro :i' 0 ::l ro ro ro V> ='" ~ Ql ~ (,]lro CJ1' WVl "-J' l\:)fTl I I-' "-J I-' ~ '"d-t::l ~~c:: ~p:~ ~~... @~~ ~ >-iO ~o~ ~~~ ;j~Z N ... .I: .c .c ... -.; c ... "- Co CJ. "- Co o ( 1 ~ . ~ t) 1 1 1 I ) ., f ) (It - ... - ...... ... ......... '"d-'"d ~~~ ON~ ~~() t""O~ ~~tP ~ ~ ~ :S::Orn Z>~ ~I tf.l rn ....... .. - - - ... - ... - ... ... - - - =- - ..... - - - - - ...~~. ..."jo. ~ ~:h :;:: .....(1;0 !'11:b "'f (jbg gc !9~ ,fil :l- e e :Xl m CJl CJl (") o :Xl :Xl m (") ::! o Z :Xl m p C m CJl -I m e ""01-' ::1,0\ o t\:) ... 0 1;'0 ~~~ ~ro -, () ::l ... ::l ro ro ro ~ ;.;- S-~ (,]lro (,]l' wVl "-J' t\:)fTl I I-' "-J I-' .p.. tJI tJI (..I ...l N ~ .6! ~ ~ ,", ~ ... p - -- - - .. ... - ... .. ........ :: .. - - .. - .. - - ..-, - .. - - - .. .. - .. - .. .... - ic.....c..X c.. 10 "'OIT 0 I)) .oIl-.ll ,t:;.OQCQ I)) 0 I1l:t... r 2 22.ftJ : <tn ... i 3: 111111-. i 2Il2C I Q ~ 'U1c:tltfUl i If. tn c: IT, UI ,1II ))2111 ! 1f.))2t: '" illJ<I1IITftJ 1111 Xlii ..c. 0 '1II ftJ 1.0 ftJ iOl \; ~~ jJ m C") ::! o z jJ m p C m (fl -l m o ."....~ ~;::lc: ~~~ ~eO g~~ ~ ..., 0 20~ 1.I1~~ ;a~Z N ... .l: .0 .0 ftJ o o '" "- 1II ... "- .0 .0 , '"O~ ::1. 0'1 o "" ""lo rO iffJ1 ~ to ;s:/ii 5' Q ::s eI) eI) eI) ~ ~ Oi~ (}lei) (}l . W(fl "-J ' ""rn I ~ -....J ~ ~ :1 11 r- OO 7- Z 01 ()I /(-;:;:~(~:l l:::; ~ " , .' " <AI g ''\ 1.,1) W .';r.6Ni ,"'. ..:to.', (";1 'Ql; - .;' ,",~~.,J.l;i tJI tJI (..I ...l ~ .Jij ~ ,.. ....J ~ p "D"D:.s:x:r: lTiO))IT)) - :r. ll-ll .. J:OJQC:Q - ))0 :to - .. 3:X 2'" - '" .,,;;;;.,0. 3:1\1 -* - 2'" C .. ... - u: tfUl - 0" ITUI - Ifl 2.1II 1 ~. " t:'" l>> IT. ftJ - I J;1II - 0 0 .- n.. ftJ ....... " ftJ .. ... ....... I :... ... 1 .. .l: :.. .0 - .0 - .. 1 - ftJ 0 == 0 - '" ... - "- :::: 1II ... = "- .. .0 - .0 r .- )> o o jJ m (fl (fl C") o jJ jJ m (') ::! o z jJ m p C m (fl -l m o '"O~ ::S. 0'1 o "" ""lo ro F~ ;s:/ii -, () ::s ""l ::s eI) eI) eI) ~ ~ Oi~ (}lei) (}l' W(fl "-J ' ""rn I ~ -....J ...... ~ ."....t"'" ~c5tr.l o-...J9 ~-...J.c.. ~6~ ~g ~ ~ 26 1.11>- ~! [I) tr.l 3 .." r- (,I) 3 Z ()I rl~n tz- (~, r~;i y:~ ~,:~~-_,[' 1 '\.. ~.\ ,.;"", .l~!" ~i~','~~\1 i ~~;';'i \ ;.:;:~. " ' j., i~ if'; ei:ii'! ,~.,~ ~nlll .' ~ . , i.: '.:<U ,**.at-;-i ~. A . (It (j# fH (i:lI J...... tot :s .It' -- ~ ,-.I \'l1l. ..... .,1 ~):\ uuu\ @ UUU\ c:::J ' /;J ~ N ~ ~ - - --- - ~ - - - ~ ......... ... .. - .. ..- - - - .. !"O....":o,, / i:O"-l):lm):l iI-lOtl-1t1 i oo-:oe:o i :oo-r:OJ: , 1-12 I rtl" ~ !):II: -1 i "m 0 !m):l ! (A (AUI ,::I):I mUl ,22 2Ul ! -1 tI"-I .UI mnJ .UI::I :OnJ !Ulm 0 ,"-1):1 "-I i nJt:l 0 10 i nJl: ."-1 Ulr , .()2 (A l: :::: - - - - - ... .. - ....... .. .. .. - f I i I. J I I I , I ! I I t I I I ~ J I > o o ::0 m Ul Ul () o ::0 ::0 m () -I o Z ::0 m p C m Ul -I m o ~...... 0' ~ '"' 0 ro ~!J1 ~. to :s:ffi"' 5' (') ::l '"' ro ro (fl ro o ~ S:J> CJ1(6 CJ1' wCfl -...J' t\:IfT'l I ...... -...J ...... .p. I t ...... [fUU ~ "tI~'" ~~b:: o~> ~~~ ~~tn ~t""'tfl ~tr1 ~ ~ ~ot:l zotfl VltJ::I: Vl sa l.>Jtflt-< i:3~tn ~-< ~r: tflE; tr1~ ~ mo>z cOlm z~r }>G)tlJ ~ro z~c OlCl)m CJ10:::C ~zS:: ~('))> OZ c ~ .... OJ .() .() nJ nJ o .... ..... .... o ..... o o > o o ::0 m Ul Ul () o ::0 ::0 m () :::! o Z :0 m p C m Ul -I m o ~...... _.0\ o t\:I '"' 0 ~o ?{~ ~ to :s:ffi"' 5' (') ::l (il ro ro ~ :;>::;'" S:J> CJ1(6 CJ1 ' WCfl -...J ' ~rn I ...... -...J ...... .p. ; , ~~t::i~ hJ 5" A ~ i'~~~ .:.. 0 ~ VI 8~~~ h;;,.tl", ..."n ;> ad, '"^'<n ::'.: Q. .Vl Q .Q;.- ... -" 00 .. . gn~ ,F Z ;!; ~i~ . ~ .". !l!~fh UU;;! I\) I\) ~:r. r._ri r. ~. r; r: :. ;;. 5. 7 ,c ;:; ~."'" , ,:1 '1 .'2"l.i L_ ii' .> r ': --..--"1.. ...... ...., " ;; '" r-- I 1- / J // I ~/ / L cu,,.....:! t.._...... ,.. ~ / \ \ .\ ~\, , .~ ~~ ~. /~ ;.47, ~-a p i .~ -" ~r .~ "'TI' ;'J .~-~';': . ~ " i 8 I .. . . "... -: ~~-:--_. n 1 ; -':..-1 : ~ 101" . I " I. ", o:~ .\.,"'" :18 ""- ~l" ~~ "'. :~ . . =~ ~ ;; :;::;~ ~~J .'~ ~ \. "'\1:,,( ,\S ~:'\~ :....:..::... -, > z << 2' ~d ~: ~~ ~~ ~i .i~ ~~, i~l .1 !~ a~ ~!:I ~ '~ f\) 9l ~ ~ ='f ::::: ~ ~ f\) f\) '" 0 ,.., ,.., ." 0 ~ 8 ~ g :j " ." 8 ~ ... c: .. ... Z m o ~ ~ z ~ 9 ~ ~ <I- 11 ~[~ ~: ' ) q ; ... ;;; '" -I ", -'011'&111: . "".. ""( ItA"'kS AV. ."1Q1hl(W ,.." . ' ~ ({) ~~ ~ ~-:: ... y' ?'- r-,/r"Ji'1 ./" ' / I: // ",-j A:- i' ~ ,( - 0 ~( ~ /l' d -'if / ~ CO .~ 6Y '\ '1 u; -I ~ s ~~f~ ~ ..~ ~ t';~~ - . - .R:;; -..- - 10ROH10 ~) ?\ ,,/ .........~_. ~ n o _z Ou 0- ""p :V ~; @ i : ~ ~ .' ~... ~I ~o JD~ !lum~hh!~smF.hsa !mmgmmmnm -$- -$- .~~ I] u~ I ~d -}il ~ -$- -$- PRIOR LAKE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS o o II. R-HD URBAN HIC.H DENSITY R-RD RURAL DEHSITY R-UMD URBAN LON,To-MEDIUM DENSITY I IY /1 ,( COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS ."" El C....R RETAIL SH)PPING (NEIGHBORHOOD) Ll :.::.; C..cC RETAIL SH.)PPING (COMMUNITY) Cl ... C-TC TOWN CH TER 8 C-HG HOSPITALlfY ~ GENERAL BUSINESS 8 C-BO BUSINESS )FFICE PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICA nONS I 'It I .PI PLANNED INDUSTRIA.L I::::::: ~_,~BLlC DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS ~ R.oS RECREATlolN ~ OPEN SPACE I~) :: ~ ROAD CLASSIFICATION rsEf n......SPOP.T.noH 1'\...1."" : FOR ;OMPLETf YAI"1 I: J!:l -ARTERiAL. 1:/ 1 1-- ~B COLLECTOR I ',... I~ 1...1 :=-- ...... '.h :,..... ..... ......... ,._to ".',,:,.::'" .~...;:~I L -n- .1.......-... 1..''tO ii I --' I 1 ~ \~. ...... -.' ,..,~. _..: ..-.... .~..... Location of Property 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \.'1 500 o 500 1000 Feet ~ N