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