HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Northview Development - 4520 Tower Ave Property
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
dl~
~:m: KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR <"hfrl, ~ rV'
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ') ~ rY;(Jr I'
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99- ~ENYI~ F..Jtj
AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REQUEST BY NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 TOWER AVENUE
NOVEMBER 15, 1999
History: Northview Development has submitted an application to
amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC
(Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High Density
Residential) designation for 2.92 acres of vacant land located on the
south side of Tower Street between Toronto Avenue and Duluth
Avenue, south of the Priordale Mall and west of Pond's Edge Early
Learning Center.
In 1997, this applicant, under the name Stonewood Development,
submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan
designation of this property from the C-CC designation to the R-HD
designation, and to rezone the property from the then B-3 district to the
R-3 district. The City Council considered the request on May 4, 1998,
and ultimately denied the request due to the concern about the
reduction of available commercial land in the City.
This proposal has not changed from the original application. The
narrative submitted with the application notes that the developer has
not been able to find a commercial use for the site in the past 18
months. A concept plan for the development of this site, identifying a
54-unit apartment building, has been submitted by the applicant. The
applicant has also filed an application for a rezoning of this property,
which will not be considered until the Council makes a decision on the
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the amendment is
approved, and the property is rezoned, development of the site with a
multifamily dwelling will require a conditional use permit.
The Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public hearing
on August 9, 1999. After considerable testimony and discussion, the
162b'89fiJg~~t:?:d1fIJ\'3tqg~~~W6~'r~ke. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Falf6H~) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed
Land Use Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission felt the
circumstances had not changed appreciably since the earlier request.
The development of the new hardware store on Duluth Street north of
Tower Street is even a stronger case against the proposed R-HD
designation. A copy of the minutes of the August 9, 1999 meeting are
attached to this report.
This item was originally scheduled for City Council consideration in
September. However, at the request of the applicant, the item was
deferred until this date.
Current Circumstances: The total site area involved in this request is
2.92 acres. The site has an elevation change of about 10' from the east
to the west boundary. There are also several existing trees on the site,
although no tree inventory has been completed. Any development on
the site is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Access to this site is from Tower Street, which is
identified as a minor collector street in the Transportation element of
the Comprehensive Plan. Sewer and water service can be extended
from the existing services located in Tower Street.
Adjacent to this property on the north and on the west are vacant land
and the Priordale Mall, zoned C-4 (General Business). To the south
are single family dwellings zoned R-1. To the east is Pond's Edge
Early Learning Center, zoned R-4.
The Issues: The R-HD designation is consistent with the stated goals
and objectives ofthe 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 of the properties within Prior Lake designated for High
Density Residential uses (attached). This inventory identified a total
of 391.7 acres ofland available for High Density Residential
development. Of this total, 26.7 acres are presently zoned R-4 and
I :\99files\9geompam\99-050\9905 Oee.doe
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
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 ofCSAH 42
and is presently outside of the City's MUSA boundary. The 2020
Comprehensive Plan, which has not been approved by the
Metropolitan Council at this time, proposes a floating MUSA concept,
which may make some of this land available for development.
Approval of this request will reduce the amount of commercial land
available for development by approximately 3 acres. This site is not
conducive to large scale commercial development; however, there may
be smaller commercial uses that can be accommodated on the site. On
the other hand, the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map will provide additional land for the development of
High Density Residential uses, which will in turn help to satisfy a need
for rental housing in the City of Prior Lake.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan amendment to the R-HD
designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan in that it offers a variety of housing types and
provides for open space and the preservation of the natural elements of
the site. The R-HD designation is also consistent with the City's
Livable Community goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing.
Furthermore, the studies completed by the Scott County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and the Prior Lake Economic Development
Authority have indicated a real need for additional higher density
rental housing. For this reason, the staff recommends approval of this
request.
The Planning Commission felt the need for commercial land
outweighed the need for additional high density residential land, and
that it is in the best interest of the City to maintain the existing supply
of commercial land for future development. Attached is a letter from
the petitioner's attorney, Bryce Huemoeller, reiterating the rationale
for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Despite the petitioner's
rationale, the Planning Commission also found that the applicant had
not provided any additional information to indicate the existing
Comprehensive Plan designation of the property is incorrect. The
Planning Commission therefore recommended denial of this request.
Budget ImDact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this
request. Approval of this request may facilitate the development of
this property, and increase the City tax base.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1: \99files\9geompam\99-05 0\9905 Oce.doc
Page 3
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1. Adopt Resolution 99-XX denying the proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to the R-HD designation as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
2. Direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact
approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the R-
HD designation as recommended by staff.
3. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City
Council discussion.
The Planning Commission recommends Alternative #1. If the Council
agrees with this recommendation, a motion and second to adopt
Resolution 99-XX denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
designate this property as R - HD is required.
The staff recommends Alternative #2. If the Council agrees with this
recommendation, a motion and second directing staff to prepare a
resolution with findings of fact approving the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this property as R-HD
is required.
I: \99files\9geompam\99-050\9905 Oee.doe
Page 4
RESOLUTION 99-XX
RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
4520 TOWER STREET
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, Northview Development submitted an application to amend the City of
Prior Lake 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the C-CC
(Community Retail Shopping) to the R-HD (High Density Residential)
designation for the property legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 2, Enevid First Addition; and That part of Outlot A, Enevid
First Addition, contained within the following described tracts: That part of
Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file
in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as
beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04
minutes 17 seconds West record bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1,
300.00 feet to the south line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North
89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said south line 51.99 feet;
thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East along the southeasterly
line of said easement 247.34 feet to the south line of South Anna Lane, now
known as Tower Street; thence southeasterly along said south line 105.18
feet, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central
angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds, a radius of 2,547.98 feet and the
chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East;
thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve
39.82 feet; thence South 1 degree 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of
379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39
feet to the point of beginning. Together with that part of the south half of
vacated South Anna Lane, known as Tower Street, which lies between the
northerly extension of the easterly line of said property and the
southwesterly extension of the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 1, Brooksville
Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof.
and
WHEREAS,
legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed 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 E~~rJil:i-~~~o.B;8~~E~5e~~it~~e~~innesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~g447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
those interested in this request to present their views; and
WHEREAS,
on August 9, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS,
on November 15, 1999, the Prior Lake City Council considered the
application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to
designate the above described property to the R-HD designation; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission
to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment along with the staff
reports and the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and
other pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA, that the proposed amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to
designate the above described property as R-HD (High Density Residential) is hereby denied
based upon the following findings of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The supply of available commercial land in the City of Prior Lake is minimal. Approval of
this proposal will reduce the available supply of land by three acres.
2. It is in the best interest of the City to maintain the existing supply of commercial land for
future development.
3. The applicant has not provided any information to indicate the existing Comprehensive Plan
designation and zoning of the property is incorrect.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of November 1999.
YES NO
Mader Mader
Kedrowski Kedrowski
Petersen Petersen
Schenck Schenck
Wuellner Wuellner
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
1:\99files\9geompam\99-050\rs99xxee.doe Page 2
~~,-.r--~---~
--~
I
L
500
L
Location of Property
,
~
!1
I
o
500
1000 Feet
-----,
L
N
/,.,/":\~~~);?'t:+i'i"""'11111 rq ~ i I i - ~~ ~ ~
,~~9~~~Y;' iHJt~,~i-: ! i ~"f.l: rlk!iW.~liJEi'I'lu ~!II~'I'!ffm/fLtlc::Jr;;~:'''E~ff1ij..5::~
I~TI '~g: ill i 11,1"1 :j. - ~ fI r{' ].r:s" : ~
. ,. ,~,,,.. .... ..,.". .. ; DO HI' . -
7 . ' , , I ' I -, _... - -I,. +1.. -r.,? .~H""i. ..I.. .'1,101 I! "'\""...., ..... ','
\:. . .+1.1.1+1'1' '1'1"'1-1 ,!I-I. ,I. .IT:: +1. +I'!I" ,I.I.'.!. '1:' ';\1"1''';';'1",''1'.' "j" ~ 't ' ~ "'lID' : :. II! ':
. ..,".~ 1 1_'1 '1"1' , 1+...' .... .. '
'. ): ~J:~i~<t;ai~f~~~"1 . ,_../. 1'.1. '1,1:':1 ' ..
~..:...-I:;io: "<i!X,,~ ",",u :::..-'tl'" I); l1IWI'- '_'.1+.;.+1+\_+1-1.. ..
/j----j ::::;\<.~~A-"<'''' ",.l ---i ~ -. B: ,....._, ; ., _:.
--=_ i;~!,'I"': "~:r"'<: "'C'="2:,-=:':~: --. ;\' '="-'~~h;:4C- Ie :
I)' ..: _ ... \~E~IDE ~:. L.\.y l-=::.-1-I":
I,' .\..:.-1_.' f . 2 __. 1.1 -
. \ . I " \~', ~YUES - . I I -' 111\1
-= :\,' ~. ,.;- \11,1,111:. m.~"'%~ -~ ~"- ~;::=::'i"'~"'"
ro-.,~)'\" , ~." .-.. ...... .:.:;:.:.:11..:...:.:.>:.:.... '.:.:. ....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:. q,.- ~'. -~.. _.~...t..'
T:\::'rr-l ;011,...' I~,.~~:,~'" I ~... .1..1.'" I :~!~:l~ . .;::::: :: .' ..;'::r:':':':'::::::~ -;.:::.... I ::.:.-:. '. 'rFl,::'
~9;:.ffiP \ ~..t.\). \ . of ~... 'l"lf"i ." .:.:.:.:. :. .~.." . ,h ....... .." a.;.':. .
:: ~I"",,:"H- - ".,"' "'__,~/ \ ~ ~#;~) Lit ,:"ii: ;',,? 'f~':':,;.::' ,~
~.....
": ~~J. .. ":. ~lH\'\"\" \ ~'~'" '.. ::.' . .., . I",,:' ,_. ...:..::.~':.!. .:or.
. "-,,-r-:4-.;"]".\ ';"- ~ ~ J9 I .' . ..... '0..... m~' ,'~ .
" ~ .-;;-, I $'''\~. 'I' :;,; . ::'::::f:::t::::: q.!'..J . . J
,..,-If.7-1 .. ' ~~ ..~,[ ~ ~ '-~ %f!t~:~. L:.....:. . r<.... ......". ..:~.....
.I_I%..~,,' ,'~ ~ '" ,:,,~ ,~~~:};t:;: .."::~~.:'..,:~' . ' ,," '.' p~~'.' .~.::..
;/I .. \.,',.....,,~ ::~:r,~:~:::~:: ~ .'. . .::. ' .' ..... .
--I ,. . ~' ~ ," ,~' . .,::!::::~:::, " ~..I ., ~. (,.. . . ~ . .:...... .
-'---1 G "I . ...... -'.=:' '" :::::::::::::::::::: -'. . .'.~ ... '.to' -. ::.r. .:.::::., .
~~ . ". ~~~" ~t:~:}~:~::::: ~ ~- . (. ^. / f;';;;':..': ".
~~ ~,~r{ii:H ~~~ ':::C ~:II:wg1~~1~1~:fP~~ ~;,~ '.' . ,::;:},{ "' ;",'.',,~if:
:0'--;-'>>.... :W--Jr.---J.'?li.0' ~.~, "~___~0..\..L V.. .:: '~;::':1?::'. .
I . I --:; . ( 17 ..':.J L'i ._.,.'~'~ . ..;. . ~C: ".....
~ ~.....:... . /" ~ '. {r~:7/ ,w'v'" O~ ~iOAS< ... . ~.~., .:; ":':'.:~,~-o;~.:.....:::::':~:
~. . '1 I/, .......~.... ...-.".. ,,' . ...1I~r'-'~,,' "
I_')'~_" '.' .. 'l " . -- ... ;.~. '.'t' .'.
:~i!.~~ i8 .:' ~ -~. 0 ~;,~ ~ ~ :::::. .;: ".' '. "':.::~'.:::~':.: ::::::>:.
, . '\1~" ".....' .... ."c:..7r"....;;:. .t. " :
~ T",\,'I;!':' . . . . . ~ .,~,""'l ,":." "'.. 1iiii!I!'
~1 :'~~~~.gi' ? ,~.' , ':I:e-::~t:. .:;.: .
18 ~.;illi. ...." ~..=Uel k ~l:P\~ :....!....:.. .: ~M . . .~ -,:'-:-",,:!\.:":.. ::
.~;1!;...:.I::2B< .. ,,,y. .....':"':...............""..' .............
r ._"",--, ~ 'v- . ,'. ...Ii ,,-,~'Y. .
11 iT il 1\ . II . 11111 .. ... I" H' H~ II....' 7
;if1f.~.M.<. ..~~~~~" !ll, ~ZJ..~,,:~.:..~'~~: ,"."-'.''j r..~-:.,::~
~ ,.. .. 0' " . \ i ...~,
~.......~=-::c:-, ,;.~' ,;:':CRYSTAL ~-RS'f\
- if{f)~l . .
/' 2010 COMPREHENSIVE GL.IDE PLAN . LAND USE MAP \KE (' ~~C .....
C ._' Oo,~., ~""-~M""~~"~~' t~ -y.
~~' DR R-~~D RURAL DENSITY A'~ ~'~I~r~'~, ,:.~"!,.<,,.,. --
~~ URBAN LON.To-MEDIUM DENSITY -' -
i.. ~ ,.;~,
R,HO URBAN HICoH OENSITY "- I .....:ii=il.,;-::' l
, ..
" :__....1b:!.
'.c"~' ~ ~j
~ [J ...,. .... ,-;" aH... :
'"- E, ~t-I/~' :::::.
[]
~I
)RIOR LAKE
~
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENl CLASSIFICATIONS
.rrI' l3 C-NR RETAIL SH)PPING (NEIGHBORHOOD)
11l C-CC RETAIL SK.)I'PING (COMMUNITY)
o C,TC TOWNCE~TER
8 C-HG HOSPITALlrY & GENERAL BUSINESS
8 C-BO BUSINESS JFFICE PARK
r
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
II I.PI
PLANNED ,NDUSTRIAL
~
i PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
!~
\ ~ R-OS RECREATI.IN & OPEN SPACE
, l ROAD CLASSIFICATION ..EE ". .S.OI!TATION ......
j, e9 ARTERIAL
\8
COLLECTOR
FOR ;OMP1ETE MAPI
v
--=-
~
r
II
J... i
\-
r-~'
I~
~
~
==
I .-.. =
._;~ ;:::
"/ ..'
~~/
/ .
'if '
-~*... -.'
.::. .. \." \. .
::j~~jl ~.--,-\/,
...v..... tb:Y J..:-,'
~~~
~~
:.:' / f!jff 6
_.~_.~' ~ II....../.
.. II I I~ .. \ \ .i
! :-;-' .. 'I'
I \6:)-'\\
"\""\'~\.....'\'"
.UlJ \'i"H~
i~,~~\~'0,~i 11
'-; \~! ~otNoa..1
( ~~,\\..:....tl~. .::.!,i.. / ./~ . ,
- ,.;-\'. I '~~ ~ :\.".....~
~ ~!" ~..v~ ~" ~~
. .' ~~(8j~' ~ .
,~: 'Il~~ ," f'~i" \,'
...~ ;; , 1 r.-;-~lli .'
~. ., . ~
~~._ ._.:. . ,,; .l;~ )..
__:.:-____;:- . . :.., . H'~ . ",,"":
-II....' ~.- 0:
- '. .-:-.. . -../:-": ~
: f----: l.., 1\" ~ll . I ,"f.L:- : ...'
, I. 1.r.7~....:....A'- "
J,;' . . "
o " .., . \. I .' ~ ~
o~ ' , '. . . I~ ~ ~ '
I' ~ ~-....:
'I' ,,"
. '. ~~~
.:-
,
OJn.Or , 1111
. :
:: ....... IIh
- ;..~,~
~~~..~~I
~.~ r-. ~7-.~'"
. ............. ~"''''':;:. ,
~~~ '"
~ ~ ~~, -" ~.
~ '0 ~ ~
~.....: 1-.." · L S .ll
: ~"~'" ~~" :.....-
" ';-., ~~, ~~
"l:U.
.,.,n
J: ~... ...... :
=...... -
,-
.~,,;~,.;t.'
.-
"-
".',,:...-:,:"-C'
'_' .....u
......
o
B
;1
I
I
i'
.... ......
'_70.,
d..~.:~:-"
......... ........K
t'
"
,,~--
,.;7 - --_:::
.'~
"
, "
,
Hl.F)) ,
, .,
'j',> \..',
i'#" '" ....,
". - ,~' "'." ~"'~~'/
~'i-~~
~.,. . --..."'"
.._.0' I
~. . ....~rp~.... .
~
[CE]
-l "
,0'
".~..
.,.,
t.n,::,.~~"C .,
,-
'.
..,.ct f.....
1,h.u
_,.c-
1"'"
.~~~...~..,
....... ...,
,..Ioe.
..~,_ _U
UUH
"'.... ..d'
"..~
j ".L,S. lZ'
.-.. ...~,
r!t....
.,........_.t. i
....M
.... ......
"''''
........ ........K i
,.,.,. ~.
",L'~'
-:t:.:-- i;"
-.....
c..._...uc
-~
- .~
..i.O~NG MAP
, ,
A
R-S
R.1
R-2
R-3
R~
C-1
C~2
C-3
.AqiclJitcral
'Rural Subdivision Residential
low OensityResidential
Low to.Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Q€rnsity Rf::5idential
Neigt1l:Xlf1'lOOd Commerc:al
CommunIty' BusineSS
soeealty BusineSS
Gd.efal BuSIO~
BUSlness Park.
Generallndustnal
Planned Unit Qevelopmef'lt
sooreland Oistnct
C-4
:-5
1-1
PUO
SO
PLA"-l~JNb
Lor-i MI5~IO"J
M'N"1"E~
Staff felt the variance hardship criteria had been met and recommended approval of the
driveway width.
Bryce Huemoeller, ttorney for the applicant, 16670 Franklin Trail, said the staff report
states the facts and as ed the Commissioners to approve the varians.; .
Comments from the Com
V onhof:
. Supported the variance at th frevious me mg. The hardship criteria has been met.
. The DNR letter indicated they\vere no opposed to the driveway width.
Stamson:
. Concurred with V onhof.
lie's interest as w I as the individual property owner to grant
Kuykendall:
. Added it was in the
the variance.
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.
V e taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
~
B.
Case File #99-050 Northview Development Corporation is requesting an
amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan for the
property located at 4520 Tower Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 1999
on file in the office of the City Planner.
Northview Development is requesting an amended to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map from the C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) designation to the R-HD (High
Density Residential) designation on the property located at 4520 Tower Street.
This site consists of2.92 acres of vacant land and is located on the south side of Tower
Street, between Toronto Avenue and Duluth Avenue, south of the Priordale Mall and
west of Pond's Edge Early Learning School.
I :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999 .doc
2
The Planning staff finds the proposed R-HD designation consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. While there is a definite lack of commercial land available, there is
also a very real need for rental housing in the City of Prior Lake. The staff therefore
recommends approval of this request.
Comments from the public:
Jeffrey Gustafson, Northview Development, explained his company has tried to come up
with the best use for this property but still felt high density apartments was the best fit.
They feel apartments meet the needs of the community blending in very well with the
single family homes. They would also put in a park and be part of the neighborhood.
Gustafson also explained their management company's goals and procedures. There will
also be some underground parking. The developer said they would be willing to meet
with the neighborhood and present their proposal.
Tom Batchmen, Pinnacle Realty Management Company, stated they are a nation-wide
company and he personally has been in the Twin City area for 30 years. Batchmen said
he would answer any questions from the Commissioners or neighbors.
James Gustin, 4543 Pondview Trail, said he was opposed to the rezoning request. Gustin
pointed out two newspaper articles; 1) The property owner claiming the land is top
commercial property. And, 2) According to the recent city survey citizens of Prior Lake
indicated they want commercial property and slower growing developments. Gustin also
read comments from the Commissioners from previous meetings supporting commercial
development. All comments were against rezoning.
Jim Ericson, 4544 Pondview Trail, reviewed previous meeting comments. Ericson said
he called the Federal Post Office and indicated the availability of property for their
development. The Post Office seemed interested. His feeling was for commercial
development rather than high density housing and did not want to see it rezoned.
Clayton Harder, 4510 Pondview Trail, agreed with his neighbors. He mentioned the
traffic situations and felt there would be a short-cut from the new ball fields through
Toronto Avenue creating more congestion. Harder felt the property should stay
commercial.
Neil Boderman, general partner of the Priordale Mall, responded to the neighbors
comments. He did talk to the Post Office who felt the property was too small, but they
are looking at a larger site behind the Priordale Mall. Boderman explained the visibility
is not good for commercial businesses. He has owned the property for 7 years and has
not been able to attract a business and feels the best use for the property would be
apartments as a buffer zone between the single family homes and businesses.
James Kennedy, 4486 Pondview Trail, is a new resident to Prior Lake and agreed with his
neighbors opposing the development. He felt the traffic would be much higher with the
apartment project.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999 .doc
3
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Against redevelopment at this time. The commercial property is a greater benefit to
the City rather than a residential development.
. There is sufficient high density in the area. Other areas in Prior Lake could be better
served.
. Recognizes it is not an attractive commercial property today, but there are many small
businesses who will be interested especially when Coast to Coast is building in the
area.
. No evidence to change his mind.
Kuykendall:
. The proposal is very attractive.
. Believes the area could be better used as a commercial area.
. Spoke on visual impact for traffic flow.
. Compliment the owner and public addressing the Post Office location.
. Encouraged with the development of the Coast to Coast development. Other
businesses may start looking at the area.
. Kansier read the types of businesses permitted in the area.
. Boderman explained there are no uses that will go back in the area. Visibility is a big
issue for businesses.
. Kansier explained the mini-storage zoning districts.
. Not an unreasonable use to allow mini-storage in the area.
. Supports the general principal of commercial property.
. Kansier pointed out the high density land available in Prior Lake.
V onhof:
. Gustafson responded to the issue on the mini-storage and the setback problems with
the surrounding districts. The project could not work on the property.
. Agreed with the Stamson, that things have not changed significantly to justify the
rezonmg.
. The Commissioners are looking beyond today in terms of development.
. Mentioned the Coast to Coast relocation and believes the area will redevelop.
. Explained the available land for high density. There is a need for commercial land in
the City.
. No evidence to rezone.
Open Discussion:
Stamson:
. Commented on the visibility ofthe property.
I :\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999 .doc
4
. The City is currently moving ahead with a ring road to develop in front of this
proposed property.
. Do not rush into changing the district.
Kuykendall:
. Explained the City has space for high density rental development.
. Kansier responded to Kuykendall's question on the Scott County Housing
Redevelopment Authority's report.
. Suggested the Commissioners should revisit the mini-storage proposal as a
conditional use under the Comprehensive Plan. Felt it would be a good compromise
for all.
. Rye stated that a mini-storage was not approriate in a commerical district.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
OF THE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDINGS STATED BY THE
COMMISSIONERS INTO THE RECORD.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go to the City Council on Tuesday, September 7, 1999. This issue will not
be a public hearing.
C. Case ~ #99-026 Consider an amendment to the Zoning,brdinance
regulating,~he use of off-road motorcycles. ./
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 1999, on file
in the office of City Planner, .
, .
In April, May and June of 1998,"t4e Planning COmlIlission and City Council considered
the issue of regulating recreational,\rehicles in the' City. A proposed ordinance was
rej ected and staff directed to develop ~'n,ew ordinance.
During consideration of the last ordinance, one of the primary difficulties was defining
and measuring noise levels from the vehicles b~iI!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 oh)1and when a violation is
observed. ' "
",
"
"-
The proposed ordinance adopts the definition of a competition-~otorcycle from the
Federal Rules and restricts their operation in the City to property'which is more than
1,000 feet from a residential structure or property which is zoned f&'r:esidential purposes.
~
,/
Questions f{"om Commissioners:
/
;:
/
StamJPn questioned removing or altering the labels from the cycles.
would be illegal with modifications and alterations.
Rye responded it
I :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn080999 .doc
5
NOV 08 '99 04:16PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.2/6
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 h670 FRANKLIN TRAIl,.
pOST OFFIC~ !lOX 67
PRIOR, I,.AI<€, MINN~SOT^ 55372
J^M~S D. BATES
BR,YCE D. I'IU~MOELLER
Telephone- (h121447-Z131
T('lecopier (61 21447-5628
November 8, 1999
Prior Lake City Council
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Designate
Property at 4520 Tower Street as High Density Residential
Dear Council Members:
This letter is written on behalf of Northview DevelopmenT. Corporation, the
prospective purchaser of 2.92 acres of vacant land located at 4520 Tower Street. in
support of its application to amend the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to change the
designation of the property from Community Retail Shopping to High Density
Residential.
PROPOSED USE
Northview proposes to construct a 64 unit market rate apanment 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 conunercial 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.
-~
NOV 08 '99 04:16PM HUEMOELLER & BRTES
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 the Comprehensive Plan and there is a documented need for
quality renW housing in Prior Lake.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request on August 9. Numerous
neighbors appeared and testified in opposition, the common theme being the desire of
the neighbors to have commercial property and business activities next to their homes.
The Commission members ultimately recommended denial of the request, saying in
essence that circumstances had not changed significantly since 1998 to justify a
reduction in available commercial land in Prior Lake.
After the Planning Commission hearing, Northview met individually with 4 of
the 5 Council members. For the Council members who ex.pressed 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 COMlVlERCIAL 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 furmer
limited. This issue was not considered in 1998.
. Since 1998, it has been discovered that a public sewer line crosses and
severs 4520 Tower. Although the existence of the sewer line effectively
precludes many commercial uses, a sewer line will not interfere with the
apartment complex that is proposed for the property by Northview. This was
not considered in 1998.
. Since 1998, 4520 Tower has become much less competitive as a
commercial site because of oTher development that has occurred in and around
Prior Lake:
_ Shakopee has opened a major retail center at Marschall Road and STH
169 that draws customers from Prior Lake and its market area;
_ Savage has opened a major retail center at CSAH 42 and 8TH 13 which
draws customers from Prior Lake and its market area;
_ Savage has opened a new light industrial park on STH 13;
_ Savage is amending its comprehensive proposals to designate the west
McColl Drive area for mix.ed use commercial and business park
developments.
_ Scan 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.
NOV 08 '99 04:17PM HUEMOELLER & BRTES
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 developmem: 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 me Urban Land Institute in its various
handbooks for shopping center, office, business and industrial park
developments. The ULI says that market analysis is a crucial component in the
development of property. That analysis requires an evaluation of the
community's economic base, demographics, transportation system, amenities,
development climate and projected demand for the end product. The ULI
recommends "an analysis of competitive [commercial] facilities in [the]
metropolitan area in...." A critical factor in the analysis is "the local cost of
living and housing, and the variety of housing and neighborhood types." Based
on the standard set out in the ULI handbooks on commercial development, this
property is Dot 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 NicolJer 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 me initial building, no further significant
activity has occurred because of both economic and political factors. Mos[
importantly, the construction of the new Park Nicollet Clinic did not become a
catalyst for economic development in the Priordale area (as Planning
Commission members say the new Coast-to-Coast store will do), even though
the clinic has highway visibility and better access.
. The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority completed a study
on rental housing in Scott County, and found additional demand for
approximately 190 general occupancy units and 70 senior apartments in Prior
Lake between 1998 and 2003. This study was not available in 1998,
. 4520 Tower was not selected by the Postal Service as the site for the next
post office. In fact, the parcel selected by the Postal Service lies between 4520
Tower and the Priordale Mall, and will effectively sever the property from The
adjacent commercial uses.
NOV 08 '99 04:17PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.6/6
Prior Lake City Counr.il
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 I 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 aparnnent site will facilitate prompt
resolution of the pending sewer line easement dispute.
. The request will allow the City Council to consider the rezoning of other
areaS within the city that have better visibility and access to commercial use.
Based on the foregoing, it is the request of Northview Development Corporation
that the City Council approve the request to designate the property at 4520 Tower
Street as high density residential in the comprehensive plan.
Sincerely yours,
~~~
Bryce D. Huemoel1er
BDH;dw
cc: Northview Development Corporation
--
.
SUMMARY OF FfNDINGS
Demographic Review
· Since households are occupied housing units, household growth is the best indicator of
housing demand. According to the Metropolitan Council, Scott County added nearly 6,300
households between 1990 and 1997, surpassing its gains for the entire 1980s (5,866
households). Meanwhile, the County is expected to see increases of roughly another 2,880
households between 1997 and 2000.
· Growth in Scott County will continue to accelerate over the next two decades with increases
of 12,370 households between 2000 and 2010; and 13,170 households between 2010 and
2020. This rate of growth is three times that of the metro area as a whole, between 1990 and
2020.
· The accelerated growth forecast for Scott County over the next two decades is the result of
improved access provided by the new Bloomington Ferry BridgelHighway 169 Bypass,
coupled with adjacent communities, particularly West Bloomington and Bumsville,
becoming fully-developed.
· During the 1990s, 75 percent of the household growth in Scott County occurred in its three
larger suburban communities - Savage, Shakopee and Prior Lake. Based on Metropolitan
Council's projections, the three suburban communities are expected to account for roughly
85 percent 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 1990s, resulting from
leapfrog development. Overall, the number of households in rural Scott County is expected
to increase by about one-third during the 1990s.
· The Metropolitan Council's projections shows household growth accelerating in the
freestanding communities within Scott County over the next two decades while growth in
rural Scott County will taper-off. The deceleration of growth in rural Scott County is based
on the belief that managed growth will be enforced in rural Scott County, however, we
believe that these figures are likely conservative and that this area will experience greater
growth than is projected
· Thus far during the 1990's, every age group posted gains. Children (persons 17 and under
age group experienced by far the greatest numerical increases, with an increase of just over
5,000 persons or 60.2 percent. The next two largest gains occurred among the 35 to 44 age
group, (3,800 persons) and the 45 to 54 age group (2,150 persons), both representing baby
boomers.
· . Scott County's senior population (persons age 65 and older) also experienced significant
growth thus far during the 1990s, with an increase of nearly 1,670 persons (an average of
210 per year). The senior population growth is expected to accelerate over the next five
years with the projected addition of 1,475 persons (an average of295 per year).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
. As with the age of the population, types of households also affect the types of housing
needed. In Scott County, the largest household type categories in 1990 were married couples
with children (41 % of all households) and married couples without children (29% of all
households). The number of households in every household type category experienced
substantial gains in Scott County during the 1980s. Married couples without children,
however, experienced by far the largest numerical increase, with a gain of over 2,200
households (66%).
. The proportion of all households that rent their housing declined from 19.5 percent in 1980 to
18.1 percent in 1990, due to the substantial increase in owner-occupied housing units.
Renter households comprised only 15 percent of the County's household 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 rnedian household income in Scott County is expected to increase from just under
$55,000 in 1998 to just over $64,000 in 2003. The number of households with incomes of
$50,000 or more will increase by 25 percent between 1998 and 2003, while the households
with incomes below $50,000 will increase by only 16 percent. The substantial increases in
income are due to large numbers of baby boomers aging their peak earning years.
. According to Metropolitan Council estimates, Scott County will have added about 10,950
jobs during the 1990s. As with employment growth throughout the metro area, employment
growth in Scott County is expected to taper-off slightly between 2000and 2010, with a
projected increase of9,360 jobs. Job growth is expected to slow considerably in both Scott
County and the metro area between 2010 and 2020.
Rental Market Review
. Limited rental housing construction during the 1990s has driven vacancy rates in the Twin
Cities to an all-time low. Rental vacancy rates metro-wide were 1.1 percent as of3rd Quarter
1998.
. 380 rental units were built in Scott County between 1990 and December 1998. In addition,
we identified 20 rental units that were lost to fire or converted to ownership housing resulting
in a net increase of about 360 units. Meanwhile, the County has seen an increase of about
7,200 households. Thus, rental housing has accounted for only about 5 percent of the
County's household growth between 1990 and 1998.
")
~lAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
. Of the roughly 380 units built in the County during the 1990s, about 10 percent were
subsidized, 40 percent were market rate and one-half were affordable units.
. The rental market in Scott County is also very tight. A survey oflarger rental projects
throughout the County, revealed a vacancy rate of 1.0, excluding, River City Apartments
which was still in its initial lease-up period at the time of the survey.
. The following tables summarize 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 OCCUPAJ.'lCY PROJECTS
SCOTT COUNTY
November 1998
Tax Credit Subsidized
Total Vacant Rate Total Vacant Rate
48 0 0.0% 56 0 0.0%
43 0 0.0% 17 0 0.0%
48 0 0.0% 40 2.5%
0 0 38 2 5.3%
.
4 0 0.0% 53 1.9%
48 2 4.2% 57 1.8%
-
191 2 1.0% 261 5 1.9%
Total
Units Vacant Rate
-
772 7 0.9%
328 2 0.6%
368 5 1.4%
69 2 2.9%
112 1 0.9%
157 3 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.
3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
RENTAL MARKET SURVEY Sffi\iIMARY
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 Rate
180 8 4.4%
45 0 0.0%
39 0 0.0%
52 0 0.0%
3S 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 dernand 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 moderate-rent general occupancy housing could
MA..XFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
-+
SUMMARY OF F~TIINGS
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
Afforda b leiS u bsidized
Market Rate
Affordable
Affordable
Market Rate
Affordable/Subsdized
Affordable
~,farket Rate
Subsidized
Location
Belle Plaine
Savage
Shakopee
Belle Plaine
Savage
Savage
Shakopee
Shakopee
Shakopee
Scattered
Developer
Tom j\feger
Evergreen Development
Srnart Corporartion
Bergstad Properties
Mary T. Inc.
Hartford Financial
Evergreen Development
Sand Companies
Sand Companies
Scott County HRA
Starns
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 ENDINGS
No. of
Units
24
24
42
24
30
29
Product Type
Subsidized
Subsidized
AffordablelMarket Rate
C ongrega tel Optional-Services
Assisted Living
Assisted Living
Location
Belle Plaine
Belle Plaine
Savage
Belle Plaine
Belle Plaine
J ordari
Developer
Belle Plaine Lutheran Home
Belle Plaine Lutheran Home
Scott County HRA
Belle Plaine Lutheran Home
Belle Plaine Lutheran Home
Benedictine Health Services
Status
under const.
planned
planned
planned
planned
planned
. The two subsidized project either under construction or planned by the Belle Plaine Lutheran
homes, if built, will likely satisfy the majority of the county's demand for subsidized senior
housing over the next five years.
. Between the two affordable market rate projects in planned by the Scott County HRA (River
City and the planned Savage project) and the planned congregate/optional services project by
the Belle Plaine Lutheran Home a large portion of the demand for independent senior
housing will be satisfied. However, demand still exists for additional 82 units of independent
senior housing in the County through 2003.
. The two assisted living projects planned by the Belle Plaine Lutheran Home and Benedictine
Health Services will satisfy 59 of the 105 units of demand for service-intensive housing in
the County. Yet,excess demand still exists for another 46 units of this type of housing.
However, the development of two assisted living facilities in communities as close as Jordan
and Belle Plaine could create a saturation of assisted living housing in the Belle Plaine-
Jordan market area in the short-term which could lead to extended absorption periods and
excess vacanCIes.
. A summary of the distribution of rental demand as well as recommendations for rental
development in each community is discussed in the Conclusions and Recommendations
section of the report.
. It is important to note that the recommendations presented are to be used only as a guideline
for development and should demand be unmet in anyone community it is possible that
neighboring communities may be able to capture a portion of the stated demand.
Furthermore, demand for rental housing is allocated only to incorporated municipalities
because they have the necessary infrastructure in place for such high-density development.
That is not'to say that demand forrental 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.
CONCLUSIONS Ai"ID RECONL\1ENTIA 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 adulUfew services projects presented earlier in this section.
TABLE 35
GENERAL RECOMME:'iDATIONS
SUBSIDIZED SENIOR BUILDINGS
SCOTT COUNTY
November 1998
Unit Mix
60%
Unit Tvpe
IBRlIBA
Size/So.Ft
625-650
40%
2BRll.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 DEMAJ.'ID SL~IMARY
SCOTT COUNTY
1998- 2003
Market
Rate
General Occupancy
Moderate
Rent Subsidized
Senior
Market Rate
Service-Intensive Independent
Subsidized
Shakopee 100-110 28-36 G 50-60
Prior Lake 316-324 66-72 24-36 45-50
Savage 36-42 28-36 40-45
Belle Plaine 16-24 30-36 0 50-65 0
Jordan 30-36 0 20-30 0
New Prague 0 18-24 16-24 0 24-30
340 300 110 135 170
Source: Maxfield Research Inc.
25-30
o
~
o
55
I") -
-)
MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
RENT AL HOUSING MARKET REVIEW
Valley and Countryview Apartments have outdoor swimming pools. The remaining three
projects have limited building amenities.
Tax-Credit Proiects
~ Currently, there is only one affordable general occupancy rental project in Savage, the
recently completed 48-unit Evergreen Pointe Townhomes. The project received funding
through Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) Section 42 Low Income Tax Credit
program and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority's Metropolitan Opportunities
Housing Program (MHOP). Five of the units have been designated as MHOP units and are
owned by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Four of the five
MHOP units are reserved for families displaced by the demolition of Minneapolis Public
Housing units and the other unit is reserved for the Scott County Public Housing program.
The tax credit portion of the building includes 16 two-bedroom units and 32 three-bedroom
units. The two-bedroom units have monthly rents of $590, while the three-bedroom units rent
for $679 per month. The units feature private entrances, one and one-half bathrooms,
dishwashers, disposals, central air conditioning, and washer and dryer hook-ups. In addition,
a detached garage is included in the rent.
Subsidized
~ The five MHOP units of Evergreen Pointe consist of three, three-bedroom units and a
(hearing-impaired compliant) four-bedroom unit. All MHOP units have rents based on 30
percent of the household's adjusted gross income.
~ The only other rental housing project in Savage with a deep subsidy is a 12-unit public
housing project owned by the Scott County HRA. The project, which was built in 1980,
consists of two-story, three-bedroom townhome-style units with private entrances and
detached garages. Rents are based on 30.0 percent of the household's adjusted gross income
(AGI). All of the units were occupied and the vast majority of the residents are families.
Prior Lake
Twelve general occupancy projects were surveyed in Prior Lake. These projects are summarized
on Table 16. The 12 projects have 368 units and an overall vacancy rate of 1.4 percent.
Market Rate
~ Nine of the 12 general occupancy projects surveyed in Prior Lake were market rate projects.
Combined, they have a total of 280 units.
~ There were four units vacant among these projects at the time of the survey, a vacancy rate of
1.4 percent; this compares with a vacancy rate of 2.4 percent in the 1995 study. One project
surveyed in the 1995 study was lost to fire and not included in this survey.
71
:\'lAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
-----.or...---
f, r
TABLE 16
Gl<;NERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL PRO.met's
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Novcmbcr 1998
Year No. of
Projcct Namc/Location Uuilt Units Unit Mix/ Rents Vacancies Tcnant Prolilc Commcnts/ Amenities/Features
Market Rate:
Tower Ilill Easl 1987 68 18-1 flR - $555 0 30% couplcs w/o childrcn, 3-slory elv. bldg. WaIl-unit Ale, DW, disposals,
4680 Tower SI. S.E. 8-11 DEN - $560-655 0 30% singles, 20'% in-unit WID, balcony/ patio, ceiling fans, blinds.
30-2BR - $700 0 families, Some units have gas fireplaces. Security entry,
12-2+DEN - $740-920 I 20% seniors. party I'm., outdoor pool, whirlpool, sauna, tanning
beds, alrium, storage lockers, 13llQ/picnic area, lot
lot, underground heated pkg. w/car wash (inc!. in
rent).
Priorwood 1984/87 48 8-IUR - $525 0 35% couples w/o chil- Four 12-unit, 2-story bldgs. WaIl-unil A/C, DW,
16635 Five llawks A v. 16-2UR - $615-650 0 dren, 35% singles, disposals, oak cabinets & trim, vaulted ceilings,
24-2UR/Loft - $725-775 0 30% families. utility rooms. 2 bldgs. have in-unit WID - olher 2
bJdgs. have com. coin-op. laundry. Some unils also
have ceiling fans and some have skylights. Party
1'111., gamc I'm., tot 101. 48 detached garagcs (incl.
in rent).
Brandel Apts. In7 8 8-21JR $600* 0 Mostly couples w/o Two 1.5-story 4-plexes. WaIl-unit A/C, common
1 (1554-56 Franklin Trail children coin-op. laundry, detached garages included in renl.
Ilcarthwood Apts. 1986 24 16-llJR - $600 0 Mix of tenants 2-story bldg. Wall-unit A/C, OW, disp.,
16516 Franklin Trail 8-213R - $725 I balcony/patio, stortlge room, blinds, wood-burning
fireplaces. Security entry, com. coin-op laundry,
tot lot, 24 detached garages incl. in rent.
Towering Woods early-1980's 7 1-Il3R - $575 0 2 couples w/ children, I & 2-story condominium projcct, 7 units rentcd.
4664 Tower St. 3-211R - $650 0 2 singles the rest are WaIl-unit AlC, OW, in-unit WID, disposals,
3-313R -$750 0 couples. balcony/patio, walk-in closets in 3BRs. Private
entrances, attached garagcs.
A Ilen 4-plexes 1979 8 2-2lJR - $525 0 Families
16558/16578 6-313R - $555 0 Two 1.5-story 4-plexes. Central AlC, OW, blinds,
Franklin Trail balconies. Com. coin-op laundry, dctachcd garages
(incl. in rcnt).
TA'~I.E 1 (,
GENERAL OCClWANCY RENTAL PROJI~CTS
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Novemher 1998
(Continued)
Year No. of
Project Name/Location I3uilt Units Unit Mix/ Rents Vacancies Tenant Profile
Market Rate (continued):
Tower Ilill West 1970 51 6-0I3R - $410 0 60% singles,
4671 Tower St. ,,' 21-\I3R - $510 0 20% seniors,
24-2BR - $610-650 0 20% couples w/o child.
Ilrooksville Apts. late-60's 36 24-\I3R - $475 0 Mix of tenants.
16829 Toronto Avo S.E. 12-2I3R-$615 0
I'arkwood Apts. 1960 30 10- \I3R - $500 50% families,
5160 -5200 160th SI. S.E. 20-2I3R - $550 40% singles,
10% seniors.
Markl:l RaIl' Suhlolal 2XO 4 (1.4'% vacancy rate)
Tax-( 'rcdil:
Kl'Sleral Village Apls. 121<J5 48 32-213R - $680 0 Mix of residents
16714-16720 Bnlllswick . 3/96 12-313R - $720 0
Suhsidized:
lIighwood Townhomes
4716 Tower St.
1980
36
o
Families w/ children.
24-2I3R - 30% of AGI
Market - $619
1O-3I3R - 30% of AGI
Market - $663
2-413R - 30% of AGl
Market - $ 707
o
o
Comments/Amenities/Features
3-story clv. bldg. Wall-unit A/C, DW, disposals,
balcony/patio, blinds, walk-in closets. Security
entry, tennis courts, coin-op laundry (ea. flr.), trash
chutes. Undergmd healed pkg. incl. in rent.
3-slory bldg. Wall-unit A/C, OW, com. coin-op
laundry, balconies, 2I3R units have 2I3A's, 20
detached garages $30/mo.
Two 2.S-story bldgs. Wall-unit A/C, DW,
disposals, balconies, storage nns., I313Q/picnic
area. Off-st. pkg.
MIIFA tax-credit financed. Four 2-story 12-unit
bldgs. Wall-unit AlC, DW, blinds, balcony/patio,
com. coin-op. laundry (ea. bldg.), security entry, tot
lot, 30 detached garages ($40 mo.). Significant no.
of Section 8 residents.
MIIFA financed, HUO subsidized. Two-story
townhome units w/ private entrances and
basements. A/C sleeves, laundry hook-ups, COlli.
coin-op laundry, off-st. pkg w/ plug-ins. One
tenant pays market rent, 35 receive rental
assistance. Average rent paid is $250/mo.
Projecl Name/Localion
Subsidized (continued):
Franklin Trail4-plex
Subsidized Sublotal
Grand TOlul
AGI = Adjusted Gross Income
Year
Built
1979
TABLE 16
GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL PROJECTS
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
November 1998
(Conlinued)
No. of
Units Unil Mix/ Renls
4
40
368
Vacnncies
Tenanl Prolile
4-3BR - 30% of AGI
Single-parcnls 25 - 35.
(2.5% vacancy rate)
5
(1.4% vacancy rate)
* ESlimaled by Maxfield Research, project owner did not wish to disclose current rents.
Source: Maxfield Research Inc.
Commenls/ Amenities/Feu lures
Scoll County liRA projecl. Utililies and detached
garage incl. in renl.
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 5525 to 5725 per month and averaged
$625 per month. Four projects had either two bedrooms plus a den, two bedrooms pblS a
loft, or three bedrooms. Rents for these units ranged from 5575 to $920 per month and
averaged roughly $745 per month. All of the efficiency units identified in the survey were
located at one project, as were the eight one-bedroom plus den units. The efficiencies had
rents of $41 0 per month, while the one-bedroom plus den units rented for between 5560 and
$655 per month with an average of $630 per month.
~ Most of the projects surveyed in Prior Lake saw only modest rents increases over the last
three years, approximately 5 percent. However, rents increased more significantly at Tower
Hill East and particularly at the Hearthwood Apartments. At Tower Hill East rents increased
between 7 and 14 percent depending on the unit, while rents at Hearthwood increased by 22
to 28 percent.
~ The amount and type of amenities found in rental projects in Prior Lake varied greatly from
one project to another. Every project surveyed in Prior Lake includes air conditioned units
and all but two projects have garages available. While most of the projects have detached
garages, both Towering Hill East and West has underground heated parking and Towering
Woods Condominiums has attached garages. About half of the projects have dishwashers in
their units. All of the projects, with the exception of Towering Woods Condominiums and
some of the units at Priorwood (which have in-unit washer and dryers), have coin-operated
laundry facilities. Unique features included wood-burning fireplaces in the units at
Hearthwood Apartments and vaulted ceilings at Priorwood Apartments. Towering Hill East
includes the largest number of recreational amenities (outdoor swimming pool, whirlpool,
sauna, and tanning beds). Tower Hill West is the only project that has tennis courts. A
portion of the two-bedroom units and all of the two-bedroom plus loft units at Priorwood
have one and three-quarters bathrooms, and some of the larger units at Tower Hill East and
Tower Hill West have two full bathrooms.
75
MAXFIELD RESEARCH, L~C.
RENT AL HOUSING MARKET REVIEW
Tax-Credit
~ There is only one tax-credit project in Prior Lake, the 48-unit Kestrel Village Apartments.
The project consists of 32 two-bedroom units with rents of S680 per month and 16 three-
bedroom units with rents of S720 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-bedroorn 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 ofS619 for the two-
bedroom units, $663 per month for the three bedroom units, and 5707 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 $250 per month although one
tenant pays the market rent.
~ The other subsidized general occupancy project in Prior Lake is Franklin Trail, a four-plex
owned by the Scott County HRA. This project is subsidized through RUD's Public Housing
program and tenants pay 30% of their AGI for rent. All four units have three bedrooms and
detached garages.
Jordan
Data on the six largest general occupancy rental projects in Jordan appears in Table 17. The
projects have a total of 69 units, all but two of which were occupied for a vacancy rate of 2.9
percent. Of the six general occupancy projects in Jordan, four are market rate and two are
subsidized. Like Belle Plaine, all of the rental units in Jordan are in smaller projects, the largest
being 24 units. Jordan has more subsidized than market rate general occupancy units.
Market Rate
~ Only four market rate projects were identified in Jordan, one small 3-unit project that was
identified in the 1995 study has since been converted to ownership housing. The four market
rate projects have 31 units, the smallest number of the six larger cities in the County. All of
the units were occupied at the time of the survey.
76
MAXFIELD RESEARCH, INC.
Available High Density Properties
(Properties Guided as R-HD up to 30 units/acre)
LOCATION ACRES CURRENT LAND WITHIN
ZONING USE MUSA
1 17 R-4 R-HD YES
2 4 R-4 R-HD YES
3 4 R-4 R-HD YES
4 1.7 R-4 R-HD YES
5 30 C-5 R-HD YES
6 205 A R-HD NO
7 90 A R-HD NO
8 40 A R-HD NO
];,'
* 56.7 acres of the properties designated as High Density Residential are
located within the present MUSA boundary. The 2020 Comprehensve Plan
proposes a "Floating MUSA" which would make most of the 391.7 acres
available for development.
I:\deptwork\rh properties.xls
:'i
-$- -$-
.. 1"-\"- T ...-
(
i ." . --I 1\ 1 :1\
I \ \
I \ I
I,
,-- I I
'I " \ I
, ! '
\ l
-$-
-$-
NORTHVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
13241 Holasek Lane
Edcn Prairie, MN 55346
Tcl (612)- 949-2667
Cell (612)-720-7174
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S. E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RI:: Proposeu R-4 apartmcntuse on property on Tower Slreelnear Duluth Street
In 1997 we analyzed the property adjacent to the uaycare lur the highest and best use of this commercially zoned
property. We could not come up with any prospective eommercialusers, and aller studying the location and needs in
the community, we realizeu an apartment use was lhe highesl and most suiteuuse. Cityl Stall' concurred with this, and
concept plans were developed.
We did notl<Jresee any neighborhood opposition, as residential apartment units have historically made more
compatible bulTers between single lamily homes and commen.:ially used land than any corrunercial uses. The
neighbors did, however, object, and the PlaJUling Commission and Council agreed that before some of the limited,
remaining commereially zoned land in Prior Lake was allowed to be zoned residential, eommereial use possibilities
should be exhausted belurehand.
This land was always part of a larger part of the Brooks Hauser conunercial parcel, and had this eorrunercial zoning
c1assilication for some time- while all surrounding land was still fannland. We feel that as the surrounding land was
developed, the corrunereial zoning on this partieular parcel beeame 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. 1l1is land is remote Irom the
highway lur both exposure and access, and aller the adjacent bowling alley and bar was allowed to be reclassitied to
R-3 to allow daycare use, the l1avor of this entire back blOl.:k became more residential rather than eommereial in use.
Over the past 18 months various uses were considered. The City has not been able to refer any eorrunereial users our
way. A mini- storage business was reluctantly contemplated, which led to the actual location of the placement of
sewer and water lines across the property. This location became dimcult for the storage faeility 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 or the utility lines, it is coincidental that; the present location does
not interrere with a proposed R-4 building lm.:ation, as it would with most commercial multi-tenant conligurations.
The lines lidl within what would be realistically acceptabk utilitv easement boundarics 1'01' an R-4 apartment site
plan).
Two years ago the neighhors has several concems.
-They did not really foresee a need in the City lor more apartments. Recent studies now show that there is
need that our project would liIl.
-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 he the case. "Dle homes would view the end of the building
rather than a longer lront elevation, and is considerably quieter and less intmding than most eommereial stmeture
users. We worked with our management eompany to eliminate some of the exterior decks on some of the upper floors
to eliminate the possibility or 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 1'01' our land they would like to see. Although they represented that they felt that
any commercial use would he both a better use that apartments, and that any corrunercial use would not he
objectionable, the only suggested use otlered was that of the continuing use as a play area for their ehildren- where
then played then and would like to continue to be abk to do so. While we can be sympathetic to this, it is somewhat
unrealistic. Our experience is that people are a[raiu or the possibility or future change, but readily accept it when it
happens, and are more content once no additional change is possible in the future. The site plan could oner
reasonable bul1ering betwet:n our proposed building anu the residential yards. It could even include playground type
areas in this area acceptable to their tamily members as well as the building residents if desired. This is not totally
uncommon.
Our project would Jill a need in the City. Our project would add the key amenity of proCessional on site managemt:nt
and caretaking to the property. Our selt:cted third party management company spends their entire el1'ort toward
managing apartments 1'01' owners. They do not have any ownership themselves. Management is a Cull time business.
Our buildings are designed for ease of maintenance and management. We do not want to own a proj eet that is hard to
keep maintained or diflieult to manage any more than the City would want a projeet 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 review of our plans.
We request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and an amendment to the Onicial Zoning Map to allow
R-4 apartment use on this property.
,.:II .lIC ,
, i · jIlt
~l 2 . l
=1 S I !~!
i !I! )1 ji!l
iL.~'!:I !. J~ H
L~"~".
~ ~'
I ! ~ j
~~ .g ~E
I -:! If, '< J
- ii' I
l~ h I J ~ J 1 ~. I
0
:. . -
.
~ ~ :!
- - -
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
j ~ ~ ~
C>l "" ':t
, ,
I I I
!
L
~
l
I
l _
ONE BEOROOIA
~
.
0:
~
OIl
ONE
BEDROOIA
ONE
BE OROOIA
ONE BEOROOIA
~' Oa<al AAOtmCTV
.I ~.t..-~
1MJl)l'MoQ a.a..._
.1.......--
....-
..---'..............11......
......-.........,~...
::L~.............-
TWOBEOROQIA
2B
TWOBEDROQIA
2"
TWO BEOROOIA
2..
TWO BEOROOIA
2"
TWO BEOROOIA
2"
TWO BEOROOIA
2'-
TWO BEOROQ
2" ~
.
TWO
BEOROOIA
2C
TwO BEOROOIA
2'-
TWO
TWO BEOROOIA
2'-
0:
~
OIl
TwO BEOROOIA
2B
( ~ lYPlCAl R-OOA PLAN
IllS" . I'-Q.
<>
Q
{} lJJ "[JJ
~ jjjj ~Ijj ..
.APARThlENT Bl.D
{}
,~.....
.-
"""
",...,.. l/U/WI
I'
I"
J'IlIal lAICI!. lD/
I'LOOIl PI..ANlI
(~ LOYrSl LEVa A. OOA PI.AN
1/1t-. "-0.
P2
:i . ~] 1 ii ~
~ il ~ . I'
, f , c:
. ~ I ~ J ~
~ f S j h! l ~~ ! ~
i ., ; II ml ,!II I So ~ ~ ,rsJ
~ !" I~n :L"".~. Ii 11 : l!ii
-==-
e-r- -----~~--e;j- ~ --B- ---~~~-~-- -!~O-- -------0.- -----e~ ---------
,r . _ ~_ ________ _~_ ___ _ ________ __ _____ __ __________
I r- ---------- -- - f.A-., t-lI.
: '.. I . . . . . . .
I 1
I I
: ;.- - - -------------- - - -----__ ______J
~: ,:
il l: I
, i'
I; ;:.
i, J'
I' .
,: I'
-,
l'
"'
1
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
,
I
I
\
.~,CI
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
,
I
,
,
, I
, ,
I ,
, ,
, ,
, I
, I
, I
, ,
, I
~: t:
i: ~:
,i: i:
lItt :.tl ~
r: ,: ~
~i ~: a: .
~, l' i I
-1 -:~:..
I I
, '~
:: I
-------~---~-----~
I I
I ,
, I
I ,
, ,
, ,
I ,
I ,
, ,
, ,
I ,
, ,
, ,
I ,
--------____J
'i'
2
I
.
f
r
!
1 t
J
1I 1 l
!
.. . j
~ i ::
I . " :
~ i ; j \
~" - 0 \
- i ! ~ I
= ~ I I ;\
DULUTH
\
\
.. ~..