HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Northview / 4520 Tower St.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
B'\t-
, ' rt
(j) COTvcJ r)/VIr ;!O(( hV) !I/JL J
/1 t,\ /, /'\ ~ { .;./
t.-..- .... \...: ,-. ",'
~'/~J s'
r:Jt,.. r f!.(..
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
V0 ki\~{ oJ ttn"",,V^'t,(
j -{ v ({':,[ tY / (, 1-(..( I"{.... ,7
JANUARY 18, 2000
7A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARING T.0'~~SIDER APPROVAL OF
RESOLUTION OO-~ DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST BY NORTHVIEW
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520
TOWER AVENUE
t- '
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.
v ..
;'\ I}t< It L II t" "j ?)It L-.
J I \' .'. ;.), v';; :.' In 1997, this applicant, under the name Stonewood Development,
~~~~~~======-... "'~'1'Ubmitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan
--- . -:~-" ,.()//' designation of this property from the C-CC designation to the R-HD
- ItJO-,(I r .-. IJVV f. d" d th fr h h B 3 d" h
) H\." 5,-./f- ~ ()IV eSlgnatIon, an to rezone e property om t e t en - IStriCt to t e
'..- '165 Off/v"." ~
,..;Jf/il ,'e.. 1;altl. -45^ ;",' ~~Sk-' I R.-3 district. The City Council considered the request on May 4, 1998,
JfJr..,i,^,",~ G DO-. ...--.... 5,") ~ . "'.~ )'" A ~~d ul~imately d~nied the reque~t due to. the con~em about the
:_ s€.tJ vv lr-w... r'o(~' k&-0 t fJ~1l ,t ~ \.' i€ductlOn of avallable commerclalland m the CIty.
,.tJ~J 0.ff~ q(;.IFYI..{ , /'J& VI~ a,J.ll.(.!~W .." ~
i (\~t)\N It,'';1. c\V' ,of, .5 (," I''"') ~ &<...) frhis proposal has not changed from the original application. The
! ,,~.\~, ('I')' 1.. ~i'''''''" \0 Wi kvG\\.l> \ 0' arrative submitted with the application notes that the developer has
t - 1,)/tl Un i1 f ~ -l:. '" ~ ot been able to find a commercial use for the site ~n t~e ~ast 1.8 .
r- f-.> I. ..... , T If! iI)/J. r"~/~J;-P-II(jS ,- onths. A concept plan for the development of this SIte, IdentIfying a
,. ~yc/~;j I: od b ~ (I(;t... ,"'" .~ltt1 ) 01L- 4-unit apartment building, has been submitted by the applicant. The
~ ~J\"b/~~):\ ht . II ,;) ,tL ~~,,~,-, L ap~lican~ has also filed. an applic~tion for a r~zoning ofthis.p!operty,
.'? y~,:?VV~' .,"':,/,1) j.'.,.,., { ~. rxa) ...... ~.'t\r~. whIch WIll not be conSIdered untIl the Co.uncl1 makes a deCISIon on t~e
~,---..~ ..' fj" {'1' fOT:'C proposed amendment to the ComprehenSIve Plan. If the amendment IS
, , I I 07t1 b11 lI/"1 1Ol.!./ . I . . .
-'r- L I ,ft) tqd . ?/'" ~ wi.t 1 ,-o..\b....- J approved, and the property IS rezoned, development of the SIte WIth a
\~~) ~: ~~/"r~',- f;Q..;~ ~~. ._~j multifamily dW,elling will require a conditional use permit.
t:. . .-'-~~~ \-l\l'--~~J \Vvpi) ~A)V"Hh{V'CIC</ -+OjO, be;) e, - .' I ~L
~\r-\ r::- ~ 'T vl-H...., ~ r~?t\-J,1)1 '-~- t\ \{,\ ,I \-.-{~~ I it f1 IJil1 (Yc;~~, tt;-. -
~~~~()~- r-') (\"-'\ ~42
l:\9<lliles\9'komDwu\99-OS0\96osocc2.dQc , Pp,ge 1
162uo'Eagle-creeK twe. ~.c., PnorLaKe, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (012) 447-4245
...- -Ti' i
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
IT
T
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 ofthe minutes ofthe August 9, 1999
meeting are attached to this report.
This item was originally scheduled for City Council consideration in
September. However, at the request ofthe 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 of the minutes ofthe 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 ofthe 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\99-050\99050cc2.doc
Page 2
public hearing was published in the January 1,2000 edition ofthe
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 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 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 ofthe 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. 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 ofthis 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.
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 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
1:\99files\99compam\99-050\99050cc2.doc
Page 3
. .... - -Tj-i
r
T
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 ofthe 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 ofthis request.
FISCAL IMPACT:
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.
ALTERNATIVES:
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.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
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 ofthe Council is required to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. .L
',\99fi',,\99oompam\99-050\99050oc2.dDO 1\ 6 ~ ~ Pog,4
~7l
RESOLUTIONOO~ 05
RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
4520 TOWER STREET
MOTION BY:
Jf
SECOND BY:
,/i1G
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 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 I!~~?Ji~'a~~o~8~%:~~\'isaPi'h~e~<>Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~1i47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I I
iii' --
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 In
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 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.
1:\99files\99compam\99-050\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 of January, 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\99-050\rsOOxxcc.doc Page 3
I I
iii'
Location of Property
1000
6
~
I
TOWER
HLl
APARTheIT
500
I
o
500
1000 Feet
~
N
:>RIOR LAKE
~/-f';'~' I',' 'I" .;" ',"1 L' I ' n=:l ~ I I I - l~ -
~'~' ~~,~.. 1'"~U.r.: I; 'Yo fi'WJ+F:iM .Ii! ft!li'IH'r'rrf7{l;:l..i~ Of'--.:.d-::r_'. -m~'~.~.
'--,- ,,'I 'ti.,,!.H. .IJ,,- .", , ' , , :r.:;:j:] H' ,~ .H 1 . ~ - "'-' ~
....~. -+I.i-\.I'I'.j,'j+il++.\.Tr L!,I:J:I':.:'I'.'I~.TI" :\..H+::I-I.I..:+ ~ 'f-~ +, .c..::. L~:!,'
,:" __ ' "I ,~I 'I'I""'T'''' ~ +......".. .. . -
r , J: ~..!;-"'I<<..:;:I:..!~'''''1' I '.' .
~'. J:~~: u,!.~\~",,';';"'1 -~liHI'l!~ili !I';I._ 1I111'1'1!1'.
.:--+- "_" '*-~ "< 1 --l' I' , ,:1 : 1'~"i"I.i','I'" "j..... . .
__ .frk~~~J.~~ ~ "~'-' '==-.~C" '.TC-...... :'
d,i':'~ ... ~ ~.', ",'..l.~, -. I I -.~ - ~
~~~ \1' :Wlb~;~ I_II~~.~' I \~J[~~....6:.i.~...~.
~,>;J~ ,~:~'I..r"" W :' ,-'~ -. -' ~ ,!!:::::.y;;.~1:'
mP1:I.'.\;:\.. '~~'~'~~\ I ::::::::;::::::::::::::::<.:.:.:::.:.:.:.,: ,10. ~......~~';. .
"'""' L' \,;; .' r-"'; K\ ,:F"- .-n ..~. ~ -..... . ,
":: ~I",,\\",,::\","D ~ ~~,.\",~.\,\'~ ~::::::::;:;:~:~:~:;:~:;ff;:;:;:~:~tf;t:;:;:.j . .,.... , ' I .~,I \H_/,i ::.:..::.:~::.:;,,::.. ~"
~ ..;;.........?'=_.. .\. ':. ", \ 'j r'lJ. "'-<. '* ..' ,. , .:' " !' I. "'"1- .:.:.;:: ::E':'. i' :~: ~...'
" ~5.~ ..' ",V."", "'" .,_.....j ,...,' ..~'*- "..,
"" .,.. . " ~ ,~~r'~'" _:1 E--' . ' . "..... .i'\'.\'\'~.
J '" ~ '" ..", 'W"" :1'- ..,~ ,'" ,.;' ~ "~1': .,... .r
~ ~~;,~~~~" ~.~ ii ':"'; :~. .', ,~.' .;:::}:.',,; :::7,.:.' I" .... .... ~".'! > .~
... "' - ="" ~. . .... '.' .
....... .
... .........- .
. ..-
.. Ie. -..
-.. .
I ...~(('.,
.
.~' , 1 ~ .' . ./T; '. /.' , ..&"i .!;;~:'.: "':;i';;':' . ." f'<,
~ ~t-:- I." ,{ II' . . ..7....... "'" . ......:. . :...... " y. C:
" / r,'-:-" .. .',: .1-1 .. fA .< ~v I r:' - ,.' . .... ..... ". ... ., I ,
"', ".:--lh" ," V l= r." .... T .'. ' \' t.:": .' \J
I!:I-."~ ~; 't ,'. ". \ :__\' , .1 >, \ ~ ~: ,'. ' ,::: ~:;;.:.::. .... :. ....: i. '.:: :i:.~ \-';"' .:' . '\
! ~ ~ ;:':' ~ i ",:" . " . .... ,;:': '''.7. :., :." . :. iiII' . \ "~' i" i)'" .
j~~,~'f:' .....-............ ~D .:\o(,..:~e. . 'I ~I" "1' '.
.,_~__.~:~ ~_...~,~ .' o....!. >. J" . '., .
1'-:-- i1\ -'" =, ,., ~ > \V - n ~...-.", . :.., . ..... i .~,r.:., : .
'rr 11 "~" " · . .':" ;.",. '","'-~" . . . ..... . ' .:.1 11.,\'\"'\'"
,h~' ~~ ...~ .', :2:]--'." . i :L'i,._~I":~'~",.'''''\'''I.,~:',;!I" .~~~.
ttf-1'J't~_. :~ ~~~~~~~ ~ I- ."" :...., 'j ~ N'" . \'l'~' "~_. "\,....~~
~~~':-._::=., ",;.-~'~..c.':~C"'R-'Y' ST'AL ~I~:"\'.r: '. ::~_ - ( '-'-'-~';l,\~!...~~'" ."~~ ~"'''~
~ ro; U ~' . a. .., \ - ~.-\, i'LL:.'!.":':/ ':".' . .~ ~~ ~
';: 2010COMPREHENSIVEGl-IDEPLAN-LANDUSEMAP \.KE ,',:' : ,~:I, ,. .:.", >': &~~\-.:.ll.' P
f. RESIOENTIALDEVELOPMENTCLASSIFICATlONS. ~,;~.' ..J/I., \.' " ~~ ~Yt:;~i-7- &' ~~~.'-"-' ".......~
O fiLl. ! ~~~: . ~"'~"'\: "'~,. I: , ,'X
~ ._' .~ ,""CO,,,,'''' ", :.. . I . ' . 11-0'."' "'
~.~ 1fT ':.- #' ,'-.=-- " .', ^' 'I.~)c .. ..
"-. 0 R'~D A';'i""V -----.: .._~" tj..l~' -'" , .
~_ URBAN LON.To-MEDlUM DENSITY ;...: - - - - .. - :.,':J;'''''-' - - - I ' I A.....
I .. '- . .._;::, : ~ '~'. . '. '
r.un~\,._ 1.-.....~
... .....'''~~_ 0= _..- ' . , ~
..". f.... l . : 1- t", F L0..1 . , ,'(. . ~
COMMERCIALDEVELOPMEN1 CLASSIFICATIONS "~'/"" ~ ,. ..,; . \, i~> ,! . I
. 0" ' 0 . ...> . ,'~ :--.
"'" 13 ~ ~~"~''',,..__ ~' '-., .-, 'Z-.a!!., '.,.... . . It:. .~~ ~
m ,- IE .",..,.,~. '"c ".. , '." '::::~~'
V ~ : :.::'""......' "P'!] -' ,". > .' :..... " ~~
Os C UG 'M\,' ...,.,,-' liH
>::I - .~mW""'''AAC""''''~ IT' ' /
C.SO BUSINESS :lFFICE PARK '1-- ~ ~, -
-.,,,,,,,,,,,,",,, ,,,"U""-"""'" ' .. ,_ j); ,--I - -. ",':' ~....'" ,
m I-PI .... !:= -.., -. .-" '" "~~'':.~ ~
a PLANNED ,NDUSTRIAL i'""" .. , ... "<0,,' ....... ......
.
.
~::: ~ .- ~~~
. ~ ".~.':::'" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~.'" ~~ .'"
.~ ~ ~S;
~l ~
:'\ ~ ~ ~
~,,,,,,,,,,,,""",~~'~'.
~
::~.
~ ~~
.w
~
..
...... I;'
-- .."
"'.....
t'''
.- ....
-'.
~2
~/
=r
I'
i PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
\~ ^
\ ~ R_S RECREATI.)N & OPEN SPACE
!
. i ROAD CLASSIFICATION ISE. ....s.""u,""'.....
\~8 'ARTERiAL
COLLECTOR
~
A.L. $.
j j
. :.::-" =
...);:::
..~/..'
:P'
0: '
..;,.' :
-r...::'"
-. .
fOR ;OfIIlPLfTE .....,)
......=.,~....
;\
\
;\
".;"';:I~'
~
.'."I'~=-"
I I
T l~
o
Fil
,t'
III
I
, r . .
Ii" .....,j...' ,.
M. .- ~ . r- -! IiII -
e~~ ~....' ....~:j.:. '~F'; ....-.-.::~..~.".) r" '1'-" .rl!}&f.2E.... ,If \ ~~. ';'" ...... :.~~
~ ~ \~ -::; 'iiiI 8 ;;;; ~, .' c.=;:-:-.~.- ,litl -~I rt~.;..-" .:I~ ~,::" ': .. ,';'
~\\.i.\-.. ~ ~. ~ '7 / . ~'im:"i_' ~.... .J...;"f !::::l II f ,,~/'E:"" .~. J~" c- ~-~ e'. ,~_..,,:C"
...;;-'~ ,~~~~. .~ ./'/7- ~...,~~ - ./0"'':-. ST~""r .' ii : ---;., -.'" . CSAH 39 ~.' r.;- -'"
, I~L.I I~ ''','~. . V .' ~-r-I:l' .,.
. " ,..'~i""'~I' ,":. ~",.,..Ii~' ,7 J I' , \1l":'."1"1.1.'.'....:..:.... -
. . f" ( ,.::I ~ e ..:. ~"... .' , ,> I. ., 'I - \~...1'?\ -./:l'" L'''::'~ Ii,,:;. . \"L ,~'/1--;- -;- ,,/------
'. J! 4 l./f".. _"'tw~ . , ,.~~Y.,!";:::':~ L..l \(..~ ;.vY~~ -;-, ~.".<';
'__-.:._' - '_:,..:"" .~II":'" . e' ~"'~~~"" ~.;.. - ~._. '-r ~~~~,\' :.~
,T'll' J.' ',' ~,' , (., '.... . ~ ~h "'" I
Ll~" ,~. -.:=. ~ I'~'''/ \~. ~,..: t FRO> 4' ~.AI;?'.' ',' '\
:~.. . " ~.~ ....J V-:;;"~~"4 -,-.:: _~_. .0 - \.' rr.. ..~ ..~.\,..""
#~" ~0.',"'~. ..: ..,:~.... . ~', "._.... ~:::-4"" '~l~_ 'L-~.r?~'~:' ..~.~,'.'~~;~
, _.'. l..:..... '. . . . . n.~, ., ..,," ...., ~\ ' II!!!~",=,:,~ ... ".' .. ,\ .}~'~. ~')J~
i'l.:. ~ff." "-.':, y.' f/#,'.. ;\ ~~. ::.'-"'<'~,.Jl:\ ,-- ...., II,J ~ r\ '---'1~';'" ~~ ;. tiffi
!f1," I. . . . '; ,.,' ",.'" 4"', ....i ,~7~f.' " " ""'. Lf~ ~ 0\' . !4l~
\'"i'.\"'~ ',' ...'" ~~~., 0/ .-::-- ~'i .-...' ...,ro" v--;- i0-Ji 1; . ~:::--9-
l'~.) ~ . .,~..,\. ~ ~ ~:' : : "t\~' -- -~ r . tx~ II"" J;;; ,",' 4. ,,'. '~!.:Y./.'\. ~ ~s.~
au)~ . ~,~ . ~...~:~ "..; ..... \ 1'- "--"'~.:-'''' /T~~~I' .~~ 'a_'"4'" ~~'-_'" ~t \AV~ "\S
'93".~ \ -:':-{-" , , /. ,~"'...... "I ." ,- ,~l:;, -~ -I. ~/
, ' ~~!'U'. ' .' - - I" ._0,
.~~~~!~!r~ .....".i..~i;.. . _ ._,,~ " .:~.. !. ........~~., ~.I.,'...;;.d. ;~:-~. ~~...jI~l " "!--
),,, I . : '" \. ~r ., I' ' ,'~.' 1. . I. .' ~:
. ,<.<fo .,' ' \ .~. ..... ~\ .: ..oCIN .. J' .
~",.--~_ ,_'., ~, . . .'J;? ,~ ,~ )" ..\,~i... - '1' .
~ -.-.---:: I; -:.:..;,-:;.' CRY STAL . '.' .' '. ~~1 - ' '. ' ~m( ..":' .. .. "-- f .=
_~ I';: _ . ../" , THE PO ~
LAKE' ',;" . ES' ". ~ . ,1-7.- ATHLETIC COMPL :.--
~I : ff.?: -.. ." .'''. . . >- '..;.--d ~':(.p~t=i I I~
,t', ;~1 pX ~. r:..' r.l: . . Ir~
: ", ' gJ vi"'" ,'-- '- ,d:z.l':lirl ~ I' I
nm,'\ ,~:' ~-l-~~~"~ """-- _:~-.- ~- " t<t~:~~/L:/ '~='-" I
~ \', :~: ~~l E ~.. t' "~r~'I-J ~GC'j' : I
" '." I ' '.'. '. ~~I' :-- ~ r. t ,.
,,', . ~ . ' /1 . ,. 'j ..~ it-;-; I
"'......./ ' "'b ~., ,. I~ - '.
.:"u...... ~ ..._ , .' . . . '. ' : It='! .
- _ tl -. ."" ". ". '. . ~ ~'I
II . . . ~~ '.
_~_I
.-
......... ..
., "
'-... .
-...... ~
......... 1..".... ......... ~)OO,
!
>~Fl.;'
~ '~.<
''\..
~
,.ZONlNG MAP
." -.
~ '\ .
r_'
..-'t" 'v..
Ithn
~
-....;r
-;On:"
A
R-S
ICE] ~:~
R-3
R-4
C-1
C~2
~ C-3
C-4
C.S
1-1
PUO'
SO
.::1.....,
}. _, ....~"r.'.,
-.--"
nun
... I
"', s
',~
........ ....
......
. J~K$O
..........'::'...
ESTATU
..._ ........u
....K
j ,
i
R.L,$, 121
. ):~~
r ~
: -:;..::.c.
_: T
......::,ITr-'
i, .
z-
. t
-
--
'\ .-:-
1
i ! f .
O.
I .
. ---
'jt~
~'
.~W~ I ._
L 77/
",,-/'~ jl!
" ~/:.-
r ~-"'-~,=
....,='
~L:$.
(
.,..\.' .....
......
1\
1
-.-
....~_H
r'I
PLA~""Nb
LOfJ\ KI~~IO~
M'NVl-re~
StafffeIt the variance hardship criteria had been met and recommended approval of the
driveway width.
Bryce Huemoeller, ttomey for the applicant, 16670 Franklin Trail, said the staff report
states the facts and as ed the Commissionyrs to approve the varian9 .
,//.'
.
mg. The hardship criteria has been met.
ere no opposed to the driveway width.
Stamson:
. Concurred with V onhof.
Kuykendall:
. Added it was in the
the variance.
lic's interest as w I as the individual property owner to grant
MOTION BY V OF, SECOND BY KUYKE ALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTIO 99-12PC APPROVING A 15 FOO ARIANCE TO PERMIT A
DRIVEW WIDTH OF 39 FEET INSTEAD OF T MAXIMUM WIDTH AS
MEAS D AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF 24 FEET.
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 ofthe 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 ofthe Priordale Mall and
west of Pond's Edge Early Learning School.
1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999.doc
2
I I
-----. -,-- -'-'---r-------'--"----
The Planning staff finds the proposed R-HD designation consistent with the goals ofthe
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 ofthe community blending in very well with the
single family homes. They would also put in a park and be part ofthe 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. T4e 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\99p1comm\pcmin\mn080999 .doc
4
11
III
. The City is currently moving ahead with a ring road to develop in front ofthis
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 N,le #99-026 Consider an amendment to the Zoni,'~rdinance
regUlatilt~ use of off-road motorcycles. ///
Planning Director Dori'R.ye presented the Planning Report,dated August 9, 1999, on file
in the office of City Planner~ ' /
, /
In April, May and June of 1998, 't~ Planning Co~ission and City Council considered
the issue of regulating recreational v~c1es in *e City. A proposed ordinance was
rejected and staff directed to develop a'11;~w ordinance.
'-..
"
During consideration of the last ordinance, ~x of the primary difficulties was defining
and measuring noise levels from theyehic1es beil!g 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 6n~and when a violation is
observed.. ~
The proposed ordinance adopts the definition of a competiti~motorCYc1e from the
Federal Rules and r(;l~tricts their operation in the City to property hich is more than
1,000 feet from a residential structure or property which is zoned fo esidential purposes.
///
J
Questions frifm Commissioners:
Stam~~stioned femoving Of altering the labels from the cycles. Rye fesponded it
woufd be illegal with modifications and alterations.
1 :\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999.doc
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 15, 1999
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
Consider Ap val of January - October 1999 City Council Directives Report
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.
Consider Approval ption and Display Permit for the Church of Sf.
Michael.
Consider Approval of Te Iquor License for the Church of St. Michael.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SE
(A) THROUGH (I) AS PROP
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Ke
ENCK TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
liner and Schenck, the motion carried.
.
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.
BYE: 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 thar\ 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
1 I
-, iii
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 SODERMAN (general partner, Prior dale 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.
.BYE: 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.
fAM. 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
11
T
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.
BYE: 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.
fACE: 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 Appfi I of Resolution 99-123 Approving the Final Plat and Dey, 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 g the Final Plat and Development Contract for
Glynwater 2nd Addition.
KANSIER: No.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, d Schenck, the motion carried.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-124
APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND CONTRACT FOR GLYNWATER 2ND
ADDITION.
MADER: Asked if the Resolution is accur y of November, 1999.
.eAcE: 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.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Ked wski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motio
Consider Approval of. 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
I I
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12/20/99
KIRKMAN: Understands t to be true, although he understands t
typically flex that muscle un
regulations.
struction plans for a
RYE: Concerned that the City is not in a position to approve or disapprove
federal agency.
the postal service does not
ort to comply with local zoning
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
RYE: The lot combination is an administrativ roc s 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 recommendat' 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.
Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
The Council took a brief recess.
~: 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.
fACE.: 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.
SCHENCK: Asked if the $90
taxes.
Consider Approval 0 ution 99-139 Adopting 200 rior Lake Budgets and Certifying Final
2000 City of Prior Lake Prope unty Department of Taxation.
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 I
---y-'----'-'-_.,---'---'-'-'--_._--
DEe 14 '99 03:43PM HUE MOELLER & BATES
P.2/4
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
POST OFFIC;:f IlOX 67
P"\IOR LAKE, MINNF.SOT/\ SS372
JAMeS D, BATES
BRyCe D, HUEMOELLEll
Telephonl' (612) '147.2131
Telec:",>k'r (612) 447.~~26
Decem~er 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 is written on bel;1a1f of Northview Development Corporation, the
prospecti ve 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
Remil Shopping (C-CC) to High Density Residential (R-HD),
PROPOSED USE
Northview proposes to constrUct an apartment complex on the property. The
project will have underground parking, limited amenities, on-sire 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 faciJiry on the land lying between 4520 Tower Street and
Priordale Mall (which was uncer~'lin 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 street, school, homes, and a
significant wetland.
2. The development location criteria on Page 57 of me 2010 Comprehensive
Plan srates that C-CC uses are nor 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
transition 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 "[he C-CC category.
3. Other land wiThin the City, such as the parcel located in the southeast
quadrant of the STH 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
fadlirate 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
IO the srated 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,
~~1~
Bryce D. HU~~,
BDH:dw
cc: NoIlhview Development Corporation
r I
~-"_.. ~'"---'----------"---"---'--~'---'-------'-"--'--
DEe 14 '99 03:44PM HUEMOELLER & ERTES
P.4/4
~
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 developmentj and should be located at arterial and
major collector intersections. .
Maximum Building Coverage
C-NR: 40)000 square feet ·
C-CC: 275,000 square feet *
... All yard and parking minimum standards are met or exceeded
Maximum Lot Area
C-NR: 5 acres
'f[
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 Planned 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.
Corresponding Zoning
B-1 or B-2
Comprehensive Plan 2010
Chapter 3
Page S7
NOV 08 '99 04:16PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.2/6
HUEMOElLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT L,..w
1 b670 FRANI<LIN TRAIl,.
POST OFFice !lOX 67
PRIO~ ~AI<E. MINNesOTA 55372
J^M~S 0. BATES
Il~YCE D. I'IU~MOELLER
Telephone- (1112)447-2131
Tt'Jecopier If> I 2l 447-5626
November 8, 1999
Prior Lake City Council
16200 Eagle Creek A venue
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
Norlhview 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.
I I
111
NOV 08 '99 04:16PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.3/6
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 tbe 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 bave commercial property and business activities next to their homes.
The Commission members ultimately reconunended 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
rhe 5 Council members. For the Council members who expressed concern over
designating the property as High Density Residenrial) 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 Woodridge 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 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 fur mer
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 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 STH
169 that draws customers from Prior Lake and its market area;
- Savage has opened a major retail center at CSAH 42 and 8TH 13 which
draws customers from Prior Lake and its market area;
- Savage has opened a new light industrial park on 8TH 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.
IT
IIr
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 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 sysrem, amenities,
development climate and projected demand for the end product. The ULI
recommends lIan analysis of competitive [commercial] facilities in [the]
metropolitan area in.... II A critical factor in the analysis is lithe 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 NicolJet 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 com.pleted 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 rhe
adjacent commercial uses.
NOV 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 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
Streel as high density residential in the comprehensive plan.
Sincerely yours,
~~
BDH:dw
cc: Northview Development Corporation
I I
III
--~---- --------.....
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 Burnsville,
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 of the 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 19905, 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, L.'iC.
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\\<th 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
555,000 in 1998 to just over $64,000 in 2003. The number of households with incomes of
550,000 or more will increase by 25 percent between 1998 and 2003, while the households
with incomes below 550,000 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.
..,
:\-lAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
I I
,-- ..',----rrr------------.....,.., ..,.-- --..'--, .- .'-
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 vacancy"information for both the general occupancy and
senior rental proj ects 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 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%
Savage
Prior Lake
Jordan
Belle Plaine
New Prague
Total
Source: Maxfield Research Inc.
Conclusions and Recommendations
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%
Total
Total Vacant ~
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
MA..XFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
~
1 I
.
-..,-'..-'--,-.~'----__r_----,..",.--.-----'~..-~'-------'-.. .---'----.-.-----~
SUMMARY OF FIN'DrNGS
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
T om ~-reger
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:
)lAXFIELD 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 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, mc.
I ,
CONCLUSIONS Ai'ID RECOML\1ENDA 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 BL'lLDINGS
SCOTT COUNTY
November 1998
Unit Mix
60%
Unit Tvpe
1BRJ1BA
SizeiSq.Ft
625-650
40%
2BR/l.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 Scott County by type of project and by
community.
TABLE 36
RENTAL DEMA1~D SL':\oIMARY
SCOTT COUNTY
1998- 2003
Market
Rate
General Occupancy
Moderate
Rent Subsidized
Senior
Market Rate
Service-Intensive Independent
Subsidized
.~
o
25-30
o
55
Shakopee 100-110 28-36 G 50-60
Prior Lake 316-324 66-72 24-36 45-50
Savage 36-42 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.
11 -
-)
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 of280 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.
I I
IIr
g-..,
~~~
- rS- V'I
;.~ ~ ~
-()~
o '<
3 A
;"-0
o 0'
=' ><
i' ~
o .
"0
(")
E a
a..,
., ~
';< >
c.. .....
... (")
E' .
n :;:,
~~
c...
~==
:! -
cr: ~
n .
:r.
..:;~ Co' ~
E :~ g
r..oo
..... A
- ;;-i
~. ~ ~
001;;
\0
-...J
\0
00
0\ N
I ,
t..JN
c;:lc;:l
il':lil':l
t..J t..J
~~.!-
c;:lc;:lC:::
il':lil':lil':l
~ V'l
VI VI
VI N
VI VI
.
V'lV'lV'l
-...JO\VI
VlVI-...J
OOVl
00
000
":1
CJ
g.
0'
'"
n N N
S2 '" n
-5 S' S2
0'0.::..-5
'" 0 -
. '" I;;
o ~
~2:
CJ c:
~ ffi
gg-~-
~g~~
g%5~
..cn-g_O
CJ_>~
s.c5"n8
~~os..
o.-~O
(J'; ~... a
~ Er So 5'
~ n ' c'
~ 0" 5 3
~ ~ =:;" "C
en ~~.
- 0 g
t..J. -
C:::::-...J
~~ ...
. 0 -
"0 ~ en
~. ~ ~
~. g
n (i'
F-
A
0\0
O\:c:
An
.., ::l.
o =
~ cr:
~ ~
Cf.lO
~8.
'"
C'D
CJ
.,
-<
,
-
\0
00
o
","
-...J
S::JO"N
::.~~~
o'E.oo
....- Co) = ~
Ng~O"
A en "0 _
c.' CJo.
C'D Cf.l g, cr-:
E' C'D .
g. a ~ ~
C'D ::l, Q ~
0. -< CJo I
~ !! ~ 5
CJ=:...,-
~~g>
en n 3 n
O. w
~3~o
_ g. ~ w~
-,=... c..
.~ ' ~ C;;'
-.g oJ='
51
~g:
c..3
~
cr.:
V'l V'l
-...JO\
NO
VlO
- 0
-
0\;:;-
VIe>
C\~
-~
~. g
~c..
- >
-"0
~!ii
e>
C"-~
~~
for;
VI
0'>
"':":"0
C] v;
- '
r..
..,
CJ
\0
00
0\
N
A
000\
, I
N
c:::c:::
il':lil':l
3:
X'
o
-.
fi
~
en
g.3:
5:~
.., -
0'<
= n
s:
-5
0'
'"
~
o
8 ..,
S' ~
, 0
o
'? V.
I
c;"en
::: S
s..~
~ fo
~~
~ I;;
g-'
o.~
~ ~
a ..
0': 5
o
'"
S' :>
~n
::: w
o.n
n 0
c..=
_ 5
.., E_
~
\0
oc
-...J
00
00
.
N
c:::
,.,
"""
0\
o
o
*
o
-
w
0\ ::l.
~~
-:-:0
:t 0
C'D 0.
-
tr
~
:>;"
en
>
::
N
t-9'~
N N
t;;:;QQ
C::"';.;l
r-"
0""""",,
~C\~
'VIVI
""" I
-...JO\
NVI
U,O
I
-...J
-...J
VI
000
t..J0.t..J
S;riVl
c'" w= '<!.
~t..J8
::l VI :::
::, ;:R "0
nO ~ n
~ =. en
a:i o~
0'
.CI'l [
,
-0":::0.":1
~ c:: :: Cij' 0
C'D oa :=.'"g :;
n '< CI'l
n-...,CJN
~SoO..r;;f
= < - :::
; 8 ~ ~ .g,
=.3 N n ';-l
O '" CJ '"
:~n~9':S
.~ a. 9, &- ~ ~
~"':;S!"enO"
o 0 -
A3'?SRa&-
ooC'Dc;"c;.,!"
~ ~ [ 'i' ffi' ~
~ ~ ~ g. ~_ CJ
c.. Q tI"J ~ 0" ;~:...
l1J~03 ~c._
~:rC'DOn>
a: ~: ~_, !!. ,....,
&; "0 0 =-.;':
.......CJ-=-cr.:....
-,cnncn""'-'
o-<CJ". .~
r;;N
o
- ::i
.., ~
n
=cr:
- CJ
"':-"=
1'5
~
A
C' -'
00 ~
0",
~;
~
... -
~~
!!:.
~
rr:
\0
00
A
.....
00
-...J
A
00
t..J
~;G~~
+Q ~
0,.,0,.,
m 1m.
ZV'lZV'l
-...J I VI
V'lOV'lVl
-...JOVlVl
A 0\
o 0
I I
\0 0\
N VI
o VI
-000
~[
en =:
o 0
::l JI'
o'
.,
!"
t..J t..J
~~
CI'l n
_. 0
a;.E
~~
. en
~ ~o
~
~
c::
.,
F
riog""gCf.l ~
g"-c.::Lg'!"cn
--:---..cn'<n_2
;:: ::I .., <=.., _...:
0'::; 3 _ <!:..
.., =::.. -:::: <
~ :; 0 en O.
o:':::g-. ~
EcnE<C"'c...
c..~goCJcr:
_CJ.,C/Qn'
ncr:"OCJo~
a n 0 en ~
...0"0::J.....~
c.nw ;;;"0 I
"0 :>;" ~ "0 CJ 5:=.'
:>;"n -c;"=,
C/Q Cil :::. n 0
'w"C'D">
~ c::-c!" g.....
n-~0Cf.l:';[)
CJ .0 9... C'D ='
"-o-~gcr:~
~ o' ~ ::l. ;: ~
~ ::. g ~ tn ~
..-... n.. ~.. _.
:;sgS!:~
!2.g5~_~
.. .. 0.. ~
- - en r;;-
-~cr: '.
:::
I>
.,
;Ii:'
::.
=::
I>
ff
a-
...
n
z
5
1'5
.....
c-
o
n
CJ
g'
\0
00
-...J
f~
:.>
- ..,
0\
00
c:Z
= ~
:=.' 0
en -.
~
3:
x'
.....
~
g
en
<
CJ
n
=:
n
n'
en
....::
!:~
~
-
..,
2-
-,
r.
(")
o
g
g
en
:;
::l
g
0'
en
;:::;
n'
CJ
E
.,
()
'"
....
\oj
~
2
~
=::
>
r"
(")0
::l(")
2,,(g
~o-=_
g~>>-
6-"O~;::
t"'>":.;~
-r-~:::
C_
_ tN
...ojAV~C'.
~r"2
>"":
~>
~~
-
w
=::
e
~
s
cr.
N 0 ~
, I ,
~ t..J N
3:~3:CJ3:e:J
C,l ;::I C,l ;::I. C,l ;::I,
.., .., ..,
""\"..I ""t..Jr.'t..J
gO!lo!lo
"#. , ~ . "#.
~O~O~O
-..J"""lC\"""l~"""l
~>~>\O>
999
o
C,l ff 0 c::r
~ 6) s. ~
~. a 6 g
~-g~ g
~ ~ ~ p;-
>30..>
~ f:l -.< ()
~ ~~ a
n ... :;=1 (';
g...~~~
-"-.oJn
"0 \"..1",,_
~ V\~ ~
c.:~=E5
r;;' 0 - Co
2."0 -.<
~<:::-
Nncr.:
~ t; ~.
=-a~
? ::..
~-CIl
-...J~=
-~ C"
C'\~~
...-l ~ c:
o 0 N'
~ 8. n
......,c.
eno
:- =E
2.
...
o
3
("0
II>
-
\0
00
o
t..J
C\
o
o
o
o
""
,
c
~~
n 0
~
o~
~ -
2. "rl>-
o
3 ?
n ~
g. g
II> Co
=E w
-:I:
"0 c:
~. 0
~ '"
n-&
a~
.., NO
e! n
n p..
~ ...,
~ =E
::I 0
Coc:,
o
-<
e-~
-..Jv:
~Q
I ::
~<
N
ce:;-
- cr:
:J'n
= >
c;;~
... -
.., II>
n' .
""
~N
\0--
C\~
.....
N N
I I
..... N
C:j~
;::=;;c
I
~'-'l
-..J e-
N 00
00
00
-
.J
~
~
o'
II>
=E
-
g.
0:
..,
n
?
o -
"""l~
en" :::
n ..... -
000 :>
=. Co 2. :;:
o n ~
::s - 9 -
00C,l0~~
g. ~ ~=_' 0
(; (t)' ~
"'c.Aj c.
c.:~ c
n ~ ::l >::::"l
E!.;lCo-=
!"~-.<.0~
~ nOn
~~:;:R
~ c::r w
o O::c::r "':'1
3 ~ = 0
? ::-- 5. ~
':-' ~ J" t;-J
cnoc::r~
cr;o :; e. 0
2. ::;. g -<
::::"l '< -
n n -< N
~ a.;-- :::;~.
; ~ ~ -
? :.. 9'
~
oc::r~
g c:
=-(/Q
!"
~
oe
3:
>(.
o
"""l
..,
n
CIl
~
g
c;;
::
~
I
,..,
.,
2.
If
!:
:.;
,.;-
~
'J1 -
~
e- ..,
0""
. =E
'-"0
NO
oc.
0>
C:;"5!.
~!A
~
;:;
f-
':T
..
~
~
[":j
tv
E
N -
00
I .
N
e:JCJ
;::J;::J
'-'l '-'l
'-" V\
'-"0
00
~
~
?f.
<
CJ
n
::
n
'<
..,
C,l
E
~
00
?f.?f.
II> II>
!? :i'
:::. f'.1;
g ;:;
~ :'1
co Co ...,
~ tn' ~
~ -g 0
o~!'..l
~..~ t
r:~o
"0 ;:;-.<!
r.'S:~
~ :::. c..
n~
well !"
g~
tl ~
~.
~ g.
1" ~
e:J()
~O
Q:;:
~ w
g'
o'
C\~
~g
\0 ""
...-l~
o
a 0-
El.>
0"0
>~
~
en
~
\0
C\
o
t..J
o
- N
NA
I I
N
CJCJ
;::J;::J
, ,
'-'l ~
C\A
-..J
'-" '-"
00
VI
o
~
t:i'
~.
('6'
.!"
Q.AjIf
neVI
~5.0-
n-.<-.<!
Cow c::r
~ g- 0::
f:l n~
J5 g <
n _. ~
~.P ~
w ~ 5::;'.
~~
? c >
2. ()
c;; w
... 0
~ :;:
n w
Ng
CJ::I
>=-
.!"- g
N s'
06
~
A
e- -
-....J ~
n
....J ..,
o. ==
~
n -
~~
~
e:;-
n
I
C\
o
11>.
.....
C\
N N
A C\
I I .
N - 0
t:::CJCJ
.;::J ;::J ;::I
I
~~~
~,-"A
<Poo
C\
VI
o
000
3:
>(.
o
-,
ff
~
~
N N C\
000
~~~
o VI II>
o 9 5'
.g 0' 0;:..
n tri ~
VI _ w
=E
0-
~
p:
!2.!?c::r\"..l
E =- ~ ~
n- 9 g 0-
'" ::l -<
. g_ ~ n
~ - -g <"
c.. mo =. ~
n 0 0 _
~o"c::r~
3 S =- .
~>'" Q. :;:
(Q g ~ ::.-
CJ _. ..,
n :;' ~ c
Co 0 ~ g.
~~S' >
~ ~ 0 -
0- -()
5' = -
fl.~ ~ 0
-. - ~ -:;:
::l n -
~~~~
;,~]
- -. VI
:; ~ ~
~ .!"
~
-
\0
-....J
o
V\
".
3:
:.>
.,
~
!l
-
,..
~
;;-
"
o
-
...
-
S'
c
n
=-
-
~
..,
o
r;
~
Z
CJ
::l
!t
r-
o
o
E:?
g'
CJ-<
c n
CJ
..,
c:Z
_ 0
- .
::;. 0
VI -,
[
s:
>(.
......
;::J
g
r;
<
CJ
o
::
n
o'
VI
...-l
!::
~
v
..,
o
::'I
;:;
()
g
...
3
g
en
~
(Q
g.
o'
VI
--
"':'1
n
a-
..,
n
II>
n
I.
i;
c.
-
~
~
2
~
,..,
>
C""
oQ
2~g
~C":...:
!Z_:. ~ > ~
_ 2__
-.::';t;=
~ ,-- ~
., :::: --... .-.
~:::::-
\oO;::~='
~~3
::=:>
t=::C""
-
:::
c
'-
-
~
t;5
t/:)
o
c
...
t;
~
s:
to>
>:
:'l
n
c:
::0
n
II>
n
to>
Ii
=-
-
::l
P
0"
c..
Vi'
!:!..
o
II>
n
t;
c
@
a
...
n
::l
r;;
*
m
~
S'
S
ii
c..
0'"
'<
s:
to>
>:
:'l
n
c:
::0
n
II>
n
to>
Ii
?"
'tl
...
~,
n
l?
o
:E
::l
n
...
c..
0:
::l
!:a
:E
~
Ii
>
..9:
c
II>
n
C-
o
...
o
II>
II>
-
::l
t;
o
3
(';
>
o
-
o
~
c.
7
E:
~I
Vl
A
~
<
to>
t;
::
n
'<
...
to>
ii
........
........
N
Vl
'*'
<
to>
t;
to>
::l
t;
'<
...
to>
n
'-'
t/:)
C
0'"
II>
c.:
r;;"
n
c..
t/:)
C
0'"
0"
g,
J:>,.
o
0; t/:)
to> t;
~ g
0; ~
n (")
o
[g
5'~
... .....
~ s:
'tl
...
~"
(';
1l
c
n'
II>
::
c.
c-
n
S
g.
n
C-
"':'J t/:)
... C
Do 0'"
::l or.
:z c:
S' N.
~ n
[~
Cl
a
s'
c
~
c..
':':'
z
~
n
::::.
o
n
to>
0'
::l
J:>,.
o
'tl
n
>:
1.0
-...J
1.0
t:::-<:
:: 0
to>
- ...
J:>,.
IH
J:>,.
o
\.oJ
t:::
::0
c:
::l
s:
x'
......
::0
~
r;;
\.oJ
o
'*'
o
-,
>
o
-
<
to>
t;
~
t;
n'
II>
t/:)
S'
0;
n
o
'tl
Do
...
g
r;;
N
Vl
-3
!:
S
-
'"
...
o
:'l
n
\.oJ
!-"
(")
g
3
n
::l
r;;
:>
3
o
g,
ti'
lI>
;:;::;
.,
n
C>
C
...
n
II>
-
~
...
o
n
!?
r;
g
-
-
-
;;
Co
........
C')
t"::l
:z
r::
~
r-
(")0
-(")
""'(")
z'<c
~C'"=...:
n~>>
=",:Z:::::
&::::(")-
0_,<_
., 0 _ ~-J
-.... -
1oO....t"::l0\
loOt""z
ClO>-:
~>
~r-
'"=
::::
o
Co.
r::
(")
...:
tIS
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
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$410 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, INC.
1 I
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 $720 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 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 $250 per month although one
tenant pays the market rent.
· The other subsidized general occupancy project in Prior Lake is Franklin Trail, a four-plex
owned by the Scott County HRA. This project is subsidized through RUD's Public Housing
program and tenants pay 30% of their AGI for rent. All four units have three bedrooms and
detached garages.
.
Jordan
Data on the six largest general occupancy rental projects in Jordan appears in Table 17. The
projects have a total of69 units, all but two of which were occupied for a vacancy rate of2.9
percent. Of the six general occupancy projects in Jordan, four are market rate and two are
subsidized. Like Belle Plaine, all of the rental units in Jordan are in smaller projects, the largest
being 24 units. Jordan has more subsidized than market rate general occupancy units.
Market Rate
· Only four market rate projects were identified in Jordan, one sma1l3-unit project that was
identified in the 1995 study has since been converted to ownership housing. The four market
rate projects have 31 units, the smallest number of the six larger cities in the County. All of
the units were occupied at the time of the survey.
76
MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
Available High Density Properties
(Properties Guided as R-HD up to 30 units/acre)
LOCATION ACRES CURRENT LAND WITHIN
ZONING USE MUSA
1 17 R-4 R-HD YES
2 4 R-4 R-HD YES
3 4 R-4 R-HD YES
4 1.7 R-4 R-HD YES
5 30 C-5 R-HD YES
6 205 A R-HD NO
7 90 A R-HD NO
8 40 A R-HD NO
* 56.7 acres of the properties designated as High Density Residential are
located within the present MUSA boundary. The 2020 Comprehensve Plan
proposes a "Floating MUSA" which would make most of the 391.7 acres
available for development.
I:\deptwork\rh properties.xls
r 1 J
~
-$-
-$-
~F' I!~
,It,_1
.~JI
, Ii
_ +_..1...
11- - '1'- ---' .
~, - .I (
II ',--'
f >--
'I '---"---1
! ~-~h. ..L.. ,,_ _ ~
['-"
l ','
.;1' (
F\
: 1
-$-
-$-
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, tvfN 55372
RI:: Proposed R-4 apartment use on property on Tower Streelnt:Hr Duluth Street
[n 1997 we analyzed the property adjacent to the daycare lor the highest and best use of this cOllunercially 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' t.:Oncurred with this, and
concept plans were developed.
We did not Ii.lresee any neighborhood opposition, as residential apartment units have historically made more
compatible bulTers bclween single family homes and commercially used land than any commercial uses, TIle
neighbors did, however, object, and the Plmming Commission and Council agreed that before some of the limited,
remaining cOllunercially zoned land in Prior Lake was allowed to be zoned residential, commercial use possibilities
should be exhausted beli.lrt::hand.
This land was always part of a larger part of the Brooks Hauser cOl1unercia[ parcel, and had this commercial zoning
classification 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 reclassilied as commercial at this time. TIlis land is remote trom the
highway lor both exposure and access, and aileI' the adjucent bowling alley and bar was allowed to be reclassified to
R-3 to allow daycare use, the navor 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 conunercial users our
way, A mini- storage business was reluctantly contemplated, which led to the actual location ofthe placement of
sewer and water lines across the property, This location became diHicult 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 orthe utility lines, it is coincidental that; the present location does
not inlt:rfere with a proposed R-4 building location, as it would with most commercial multi-tenant contigurations.
The lines tidl within what would be realistically acceptuble utility easement boundaries lor un R-4 upartment site
plan).
Two years ugo the neighbors has several concen1s.
-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. "TIle homes would view the end of the building
rather than a longer front elevation, and is considerably quieter and less intruding than most cOllunercial structure
users. We worked with our management company to eliminate some of the exterior decks on some of the upper floors
to e1imil1ute 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'.lilding.
We asked the neighborhood what use lor 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 commercial use would not be
objectionable, the only suggested use oll'ered was thut 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 afraid of thl.: possibility of future change, but readily accept it when it
. happens, and are more content once no additional t.;hange is possible in the future. The site plan could oni::r
reasonable butTering 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 projed would !ill u 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 their entire etlort toward
manuging apartments lor owners. TIley 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 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 Starr support for
our suggested highest and best use, and again request a new reviewal' our plans.
We request all amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and an amendment to the Oflicial Zoning Map to allow
R-4 apartmenlusc on this property.
i ciZ ~ ,
II i III
~a; , I
, ~t. t JII
h ~ II ~!1
~ 13; !J Jt;1
~ ." I~n
,
.
~
~ .
~
C'ol
L~~~~.
~ i g: I
~{ I.! ~~
I -:! If, '< I
-,II ~ I
Hlhl J~ J 1 ~. 1
~
~
;
I I ; I
I I I
~., ,
rt=rlI'
0
, -
-
- "
- -
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
C'J ~
L
I I
-------r----------..' ---
" ~
8
!~U I
ill'"
" ~1V1S
8
0: "
o 4;
'" '" 8 <::
'" 0:
0 o .,
~ '" '"
'"
0
" ~
8 -0
0: "
o .,
'" '" 8
'"
~ :s .,
'" '"
..
~ ~
~ ..."
o ., ~
'" '"
'"
~ ~
" ~ ~
8 ~
0:
Q .,
'" N -'
'"
0 ~ ~
~
"
8
" 0:
Q .,
8 '" '"
OJ
\3 ., 0
'" N ~
'"
0 <7
~
"
8
" 0:
o .,
8 '" '"
'"
'" c)
o ., 0
'" '" ~
lXl
0
~ ~1V1S
"
8
0: " "
8 8 8
0>
'" 0: 0:
"'0 "'0
z z.., sill
0 00>
...,. ..." ...1>
....
. i ~ :' ;1'1 !
~~ ~! '~l
~i! I Ij1
~ bIll .1.
8 ~~; IJ Wl
~~t:.1 !. d-l
I
II
i~
~ll P ~
Ii Ji: It ~ ~; J
I~
,
I
I
IL~~.~.
L
i ~ I , --..--,
I
, * 1'1 !
, il i I jjl
~ Ii S
1 ,l.
I.i ! IJ ml
~~ !. I~H ,
~ E:
,I !
~~ ~ ~
I s~ I I III I
:L"".~. Ii Ii: Iii . : 1
I-
t
~ ---A---~:,~-~!.~e.- -------A-----A---------
--~---u~-~;; - --------~-----~----- ----
I~,'"
, I
I I
1 ,
I I
I .
f
,
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
, I
I I
I \
, I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
,: a;:
l: i:
J: i:
It ~l ~
,: ,: !
I,: If ~
~, ~\ i ~
. t.1 I
~ ~~.
: : ,-"
I I I
------~--~-----~
I I
I I
f ,
I I
I I
I I
I ,
, I
I I
. I
I I
. I
I ,
I I
________J.___J
I!
I
I'
I
I
!
1 t
oS
i I ~
':l . i
l ! :l
I I ... ~
"I I . i
~i~!l
~l)!~
I
I
\
\
------r-'-----.....--.......'...'-..
."..... -------
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
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
.1: \99fil.es\99.cotnPam\99.-05.Q\J;SOOi'Xl;C,dO,!:. e.~g~d
16200 cagle CreeK A\7e. ~.c., Pnor LaKe, LVlinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~) it 7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1 I
iii'
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 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
1:\99files\99compam\99-050\rsOOxxcc.doc
1 I
Page 2
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.
8. 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
I I
~
PfkrI.-eQyQud
PUBLIC HEARING
1I<<e:
se register below if you wish to address the Council
e following public hearing. THANK YOur
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.
***
January 18, 2000
iJ\ V.
}'"'.dv\w \:""0'- j \
I I