HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevised Design Plan for Downtown 7/16/98
A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN
FOR
THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE DOWNTOWN
Prepared by
THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE
REVISED
July 16, 1998
- - --- - --- - -- -.-- -- - -- -- -
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY
The City of Prior Lake has considered the redevelopment of the downtown area
several times in the past. One ofthe first efforts was in 1984, when the Governor's
Design Team prepared the Prior Lake Design Study. The report contained an overview of
the regional setting, including transportation facilities, shopping, parks and open spaces,
and land use.
The report suggested a number of actions which could be taken to enhance the
City. These actions were grouped under six general headings. These were: 1) County
Road 21 extension, 2) Recreational trail system, 3) Gateway and Priordale Mall access,
4) Lakefront Park, 5) Image and identity improvements, and 6) Downtown
Redevelopment. Most of the report recommendations focused on the Downtown area as
the central core of Prior Lake and included a large civic center complex which included a
Community Center and City offices. The concept also included provisions for medium
density and elderly housing.
In 1991, several business owners in the downtown area came together to form the
Towncenter Association. This association petitioned the City to redevelop the area they
identified as the town center, which included all of Main Avenue from Pleasant Street to
the last commercial property north of Dakota Street. The City, in cooperation with the
Towncenter Association, developed more detailed redevelopment plans for the downtown
area. These plans did not include recommendations for the redevelopment of specific
properties. However, they did include extensive treatment ofthe streetscape, consisting
of sidewalk improvements, lighting, storm sewer and street improvements, re-
establishment of diagonal, on-street parking and a fountain. The total cost for these
improvements was estimated at $780,000.
In order to implement this proposal, the City proposed a 50/50 cost sharing
arrangement. That is, the business owners, at least those who signed the petition, would
agree to pay 50% ofthe cost, and the City would agree to pay the remainder. However,
the petition was signed by only 41.7% of the owners of the linear frontage. That, coupled
with the fact that the City owned 28.9% ofthe affected frontage, brought the City's share
to well over 50% of the project cost. The City proposed to assess the costs to the
property owners, which would have resulted in an average assessment of$II,300.00 per
50' wide lot. Once again, probably due to the costs, this plan was not implemented.
Since the Design Team report and the work in 1991, a number of the
recommendations have been accomplished. These include the following:
. Improvement of the County Road 21/Highway 13 intersection
. Extension of Pleasant Street to Highway 13
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
. Removal of the dump site from Lakefront Park
. Installation of the traffic signal at Highway 13 and County Road 44 (Main
Avenue)
. Construction of the new County Road 21 bridge to allow boat passage, and to
provide for decorative lights and railings
. Some new commercial development in the downtown area
. Completion ofthe Lakefront Park Master Plan
. The passage of the referendum to allow for the construction of the
Library/Community Resource Center
. Establish the Economic Development Authority
. Establish the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force
. The installation of traffic signals at County Road 21 and Main Avenue are
scheduled for installation in 1998
On May 21, 1997, the Prior Lake Economic Development Authority (EDA)
hosted a workshop to discuss issues and opportunities relating to the proposed
redevelopment of the Priordale Mall. Twenty-four (24) members of the community,
representing businesses and citizens, participated in the workshop. A copy ofthe results
of this workshop are attached to this report as Appendix A.
There were some dominant themes which emerged as a result of these
discussions. These included a desire for more diverse retail facilities and a need for a
community gathering place that can be used for community events and activities.
The EDA later determined the timing was not right for the Priorda1e Mall
redevelopment. However, the prevailing themes can and should be incorporated into a
the redevelopment of the downtown area.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE
In November, 1996, voters approved a referendum which called for the
construction of a Library/Community Resource Center, improvements to Lakefront Park,
and the purchase and development of a community recreational complex. The Economic
Development Authority (EDA) recognized that the construction ofthe new
library/resource center and the improvements to Lakefront Park offered the City a unique
opportunity to create a redevelopment plan for the downtown area in concert with the
design of the new buildings and park improvements. Based on this opportunity, the EDA
established the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force.
The Downtown Redevelopment Task Force is made up often members
representing the EDA, the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC), the Planning Commission
(PC), the Friends of the Library (FOL), and downtown business owners. The members of
the Task Force are:
Robert Barsness (EDA)
Ron Ceminsky (PAC)
Karl Dingman (Business Owner)
Dawn Glatzel-Beck (FOL)
2
I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
Tom Kedrowksi (EDA)
Dick Kuykendall (PC)
Jim Speiker (Business Owner)
Coco Tremaine (Business Owner)
Dick Underferth (EDA)
Paul Viereck (Business Owner)
Pat Heaney (pAC Alternate)
Bill Criego (pC Alternate)
The Task Force focused on traditional downtown Prior Lake. This area is
generally considered the area adjacent to Main Avenue and bounded by Pleasant Street on
the south, Lakefront Park on the north, Highway 13 on the east, and City Hall on the
west. The map attached as Figure 1, illustrates the downtown area.
The EDA asked the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force to submit written
recommendations on the following topics:
1. Recommend a theme or "Look'; for the Prior Lake Downtown area.
2. Recommend the device or devices which should be used to create a visual
connection between the Downtown areas.
3. Recommend the types of businesses desirable for inclusion and addition to the
area.
4. Recommend standards (landscaping, exterior composition, parking, etc.) to be
incorporated into the Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
5. Recommend what public financing incentives (if any) should be used to
acquire land and buildings, encourage building construction and reimburse for
compliance with the additional standards contemplated for the Downtown
area.
6. Recommend modifications in pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns to
enhance development.
The written recommendations developed by the Task Force will be used to
undertake actual redevelopment efforts.
THE DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE REPORT
This report includes the recommendations of the Downtown Redevelopment Task
Force. It is intended as a design guide for development in the downtown area. These
guidelines apply to public improvements, such as streets, sidewalks, lighting and
landscaping, as well as to private improvements, such as building facades, awnings and
slgnage.
This report differs from previous efforts in a number of ways. First of all, unlike
the Prior Lake Design Study, this report focuses on the downtown geographical area. The
EDA and the Task Force recognized there are limited funding sources available for
redevelopment. The more narrow focus provides a realistic and obtainable goal.
Secondly, this report incorporated much of the design work which was completed in
3
1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
1991. The report goes further to define available funds, and to set up a phasing plan for
the completion of this redevelopment.
The report makes several recommendations for the development of the downtown
area. These recommendations are divided into five categories, each of which will be
discussed in later sections. The five categories include:
. Land Uses
. Design Guidelines
. Streetscape Amenities and Public Improvements
. Implementation of the plan
. Funding Sources
Finally, the report concludes by outlining the necessary approval process.
4
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16,1998
FIGURE 1
\1
~(
~!
H
.'
~~
r. I.
....crra ~
.'
!s
a. ..-.
" ---.
~i I i ~
.,
f
;
,
i
:
I
~S
Ii
.
.
. "
~~:
I',
:; =
C. R. 21
;1
~
I I
---
I,; I
: I
~
A
\fd.~.::
.~ ~.
/,
\ t
J!
5
I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
L\
l?
-
...
~
SECTION II
LAND USES
The land uses allowed in an area generally dictate the character of the area. There
are a wide variety of existing uses in the downtown area. These uses include offices,
service uses (barber shops, beauty shops, etc.), retail, restaurants and bars, motor fuel
stations, motor vehicle sales lots and motor vehicle repair lots. Also included within the
downtown are City Hall, the library, and a day care center. A list of the existing land
uses in the downtown area is included in Appendix B ofthis report.
In order to determine the types of land uses which should be allowed in the
downtown area, the following questions should be asked:
. What type of traffic do the uses attract to the downtown area?
. What type of storefront or curb appeal do these uses have?
. How do these uses fit into your "vision" of the downtown area?
The Task Force identified a vision for the downtown area as an identifiable town
center. Through the design guidelines, they hope to establish a sense of place, and to
personify a traditional small town "Main Street". The land uses which will promote this
vision include those which encourage pedestrian activity, and which utilize open
storefronts.
Land uses are generally determined by the Zoning provisions. The Task Force
reviewed a list of land uses and determined which uses should be permitted, which should
be permitted with specific conditions, which should be permitted only after public review
through the conditional use permit process, and which uses should not be permitted at all.
The following table identifies the uses the Task Force believes are appropriate to the
downtown area. Uses are identified by an "X" in the appropriate column.
Multiple Family Dwellings
X
ot on Main Av.
X
(Not on street
level
X
(Not on street
level
X
X
Elderly Housing
Adult Day Care
Group Day Care/Nursery School
Medical/Dental Office
Community Centers
X
X
6
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
Library X
Museums/Art Galleries X
Parks/Open Space X
(passive parks
permitted with
limitations on
SIze
PolicelFire Stations X
Public Service Structures (water X
towers, etc.
Animal Handling X
(Small animals
only, no outdoor
activi
Appliance, Small Engine and Bicycle X
Repair (Limitations on
outdoor use
Banks X
(No drive-up
facilities
Restaurants (with and without liquor) X
Bed & Breakfast Establishments X
Business/Trade Schools X
Business Services X
Clubs/Lodges X
Convention & Exhibition Centers X
Dry CleaninglLaundering X
(Drop off and pick
u facilities onl
Food Service X
Home Occupations X
(Accessory to
residential uses
Hotel/Motel X
Motor Fuel Stations X
Offices X
Printing Process/Supply X
Private Entertainment
Retail X
Service Uses X
Studios X
Wholesale Uses
Showrooms
X
7
1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
SECTION III
DESIGN GUIDELINES
PURPOSE
The goal of the Downtown Design Plan is to create an identifiable town center,
emphasizing a diversity of uses and creating a sense of "place" for the citizens of Prior
Lake. The design of the downtown is intended to personify a traditional small town
"Main Street". The scale and architectural qualities of the buildings are comfortable an
inviting to pedestrian activities.
The location of City Hall and the new library/community resource center can be
used to facilitate the creation of a public square, which can accommodate a variety of
uses in all seasons, such as Lakefront Days activities, small concerts, and informal
gathering places for employees, patrons and residents of the downtown area.
The street frontages in downtown, specifically along Main Avenue, should be
pedestrian friendly, which would include wider sidewalks, narrower streets, and on-street
parking. The design of this area should include streetscaping concepts such as banners,
lighting, street furniture and landscaping or plantings.
There are two components to the Downtown Design Plan. The first component
involves improvements to the public right-of-way, often known as the "streetscape"
component of the plan. Elements of the streetscape component include streets, trees,
lighting and parking. Figure 2 illustrates these elements. The second component of the
plan involves the design of buildings. This component includes building location,
building materials, architectural features and signage. Each of these components is
discussed below.
STREETSCAPING
The term "streetscape" generally refers to elements of the public domain, such as
streets, trees, sidewalks, parking and lighting. A typical streetscape has four distinct
elements. These elements are:
1. Traffic lanes
2. Parking lanes
3. Streetscape amenities 1
4. Pedestrian lanes
The design of the traffic lanes must be primarily determined by engineering
standards; however, the area along Main Avenue should typically provide two driving
lanes and angled parking. The angled parking provides convenient, short term stalls,
helps reduce traffic speeds, and provides a buffer between vehicular traffic and
pedestrians.
8
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 2
. ~~r:':ed=:":atlSIl!3~c~at
Uni:=~ s;:e-=~s
. C.:::.si3:~!":~ s;:ac::::;
S~ec:at =_~~e:-:s:
. ViI1ar;~ :C~~=nC3tiC:":
d
I:""
S~-g~!: F....:l7':it:..:r:=
. :el'l::.-:es
. ll"2s:: .~~:::;c:~
. Sc!3s.:::::ai .::ar::e:-s
,
'I
"
I
,I
I'
,
'I
I'
,1
I'
.=ar:<:~:; L.ar:e
SL;~!S.:::Icel ~t:':er.:=-/
Z:~e: :- -~. :,:,::r::r:-::.::7':
.=~~s::::;ti Z:::a: .:~::.. ":-::~::'7::':::"':
9
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
Streetscape amenities provide an additional buffer between vehicles and
pedestrians. These amenities include street trees, planters and other landscaping,
benches, lighting and banners.
Plant materials can enhance the image and contribute to the visual continuity of
the streetscape. A primary consideration in choosing street trees includes identifying
trees with high branching characteristics that will not screen signage and building
entrances. Seasonal and ornamental plantings should be used in decorative planters that
can be easily maintained.
Benches and other street furniture should be both functional and appropriate to the
overall design of the area. Benches, for example, may be appropriate near restaurants or
other similar uses. It is important that the placement of street furniture does not obstruct
either the pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The design of street furniture should maintain
the traditional feel ofthe area.
Lighting in the downtown area should provide adequate levels of illumination but
should not be of an intensity that provides obtrusive glare. The lighting standards should
also reflect a more traditional style. If possible, this theme should be utilized for the
traffic control lights at the intersection of CSAH 21 (Eagle Creek Avenue) and Main
Avenue.
Banners are an additional feature which can be used to enhance the downtown
area. These banners may be seasonal or may promote the City or City events. The
banners should not be used for commercial advertising, Banners should be located, if
possible, on the light standards.
The pedestrian lane is the area that facilitates the movement of pedestrians in the
downtown area. This lane should remain free of obstruction, but may be enhanced
through the use of decorative pavers. The design of the pavers can also be carried
throughout the City.
BUILDING DESIGN
Building design involves not only architectural features and materials, but
location and size of the building. Building design also includes accessory features such
as signage and awnings. Figure 3 illustrates some of the elements of building design.
To promote the pedestrian friendly atmosphere, buildings may be located with a
0' front yard setback, and a 0' side yard setback. The scale of the buildings should
maintain the traditional Main Street character, and be no more than 2-3 stories in height.
10
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 3
Gwtlet:ll =_i;:: .:~r::::;:les .
:,;omcle:s:
J,.r:::iblc--:.-:;j C:-:at'3c:::t:"-:
.=~~.:l===:: .':':a:O:::"'l SOl!!.
:-:===::::;J. :-:i::-...:::::::::.::iicas.
J.r.i=:.:l:::cn:
lltc:.:::!:! .;rc::~-::t ~~!3iis.
f'e'e:!S,:S~ .tt:::.-:=~ I!::'
J.wninc;: and C4r.=cias:
.=~c:~ "He3:'~at' ~r:3C:::
fc: ::r-=:s~r..s :r:: .-a:~::::=::
at f::= amen; ::.::i:::.-:;:s.
t
1
MocuL3dcn:
Att::.:taacn of ;'ac::c~s. ...:~::t:=n of :aasLs.
m~-:m ~f .:rc;:r:r:cn:s (re.r:;:.~ at !:C:::C3. 'NinCQW3.
~:.
f
~(
-f
?~~er.icn:
Slr..::::.::e =~;:!er.':~.r:::s
ac:;.anc ':::iic:::;:s :.., ;-:a:;:::.
/ ~n'-:;. ~"lC cuer:" -=- ct
~;;;;n~ au . U .. ..
L"
En
I / ~
-!-
:. !!: - r-:=
O~~I
.. I'''' -JiI' ~
-.
':------:1 ...~' Ali~:e~C__ _ __.._,.. _~
I ~i ~rnc::.::::~ ..c.__.cu ..rr::..-,_....e.......
.. t "'1,.. ~ec;ri:s.. s:t::::: a.s JC::::::: ':.(::::'-::;.
I ':: "NlnC:=NS. ;Wr.u:;:s. :l!:.
~ \ ~,:;-.
\
':"ne:s:.-=ac:::::
'j:4ns;:;ra~:"l' :f .=;c:::~ l::~~~:::;i:
~e'/ei (lar;:! 'Nir.::=.v ~==~ir:;~j.
,=t.::::C~~ 'NIr::::"N :::=a~:r:;.$. !~::
L
c:;..r:et'4l ':es:;:: .=~::=:;:~a:s-
:":2m~ie:s:
~:':::::-..::::aJ :: ::;~::~. ;~::~ :: :::-:e
II
~
::::
;:r:::-:;("/ Si;~. !~:.
~
;~
r
=
!
t
11
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
The architectural style of the buildings should also continue the traditional theme
and maintain the pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Preferred building materials include
brick and stone, especially those varieties native to the area. Other commercial grade
materials are allowed only as accent features in the design of the building. The buildings
should also provide a diversity of form, such as concave entrances, detailing materials
and fixtures, and other treatments that architecturally distinguish a building. Pitched and
flat roofs are also allowed. Flat roofs must incorporate a parapet along the facades facing
any public streets. Pitched roofs must complement the overall style and scale of the
building. Any rooftop equipment must be screened.
Buildings should not provide long expanses of blank, nonarticulated facades. The
street level, or pedestrian level, of the buildings should be predominantly transparent,
with storefront windows. Punched windows are strongly encouraged. The windows
should incorporate a clear glazing; reflective glass is discouraged in any portion of the
building.
Awnings may be permitted on facades that face public streets. Fabric awning
awnings are encouraged. Plastic, wood, or metal awnings should not be permitted.
Awnings should have a consistent color and pattern scheme, and should complement
awnings on adjacent buildings.
Signage should be limited to one sign per primary facade of the building. The
total area of the signage may not exceed 20% of the building facade. The sign may be
distinctive, but must complement the overall architectural character of the building. Roof
mounted signs are not permitted.
12
1: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
SECTION IV
STREETS CAPE AMENITIES AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
THE DOWNTOWN SKETCH PLAN
The Downtown Sketch Plan, as proposed, consists of two major components. The
first is the Schematic Land Use Plan for Downtown. This plan borrows from the Design
Study and the conceptual work done for the Library by the library architects. Its' key
features are the Library, the City Hall complex, potential housing development on the
north side of Dakota Street, additional commercial development on the site of the current
library and, in the future, redevelopment of the lumber yard property for commercial
purposes.
The second element of the Downtown Sketch Plan is the streetscape improvement
proposed for Main Avenue. Again, this plan borrows from the work done in 1991 and
incorporates many of the same design elements. The plan retains the idea of installing
islands on Main Avenue to create angle parking, brick crosswalks, decorative street
lighting, benches, trash containers, street trees and decorative sidewalks. Figures 4-9
illustrate the proposed design elements ofthis redevelopment plan.
ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH IT IS BASED
The sketch plan is the same plan previously drafted in 1991. Various elements of
the 1991 plan have been combined on a single draft. Assumptions include:
. The area of improvements covers both sides of Main Avenue from Pleasant
Street to the lots 200' north of Dakota Street
. Cost ofthe improvements was not a consideration in the design
. Angle parking is incorporated onto Main Avenue
INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Intended improvements include angle parking with islands, new sidewalks, new
light fixtures, landscaping, ornamental trees, banners, benches, trash receptacles and
paved crosswalks.
USE OF SKETCH PLAN
The sketch plan is to serve as the base for determining what improvements are to
be done as part of this project. It is intended to be modified as deemed by the Downtown
Redevelopment Task Force. The sketch plan is to provide preliminary costs for
determining the feasibility of the project.
13
I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 4
tJ
I '
',: J1:/I.~-:-:7:~ I , '. -.
, I I f f~ I I ,-,- ,T,....r;
I , , ~.:...:;-......-:.~rT'
14
I: \econdev\eda \steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 5
c. R
21
i - .
i i. <II
4:j,E
In-
,j
i
,I::.::;
/,';'
1:
---'-
I
I
.1:
:1:::
I ....
":: ..::::
.../......
.- ......
. ......
::: :;::::
:" ::::::
""/ ...
.: . . ~ . :: ::::::
...... ....
":-: :.;;::
t, ....
I
I
1
!
I
::I
)O~_
'iJ'
.
f
. ~..,..
;:;'J 21.:,:1.:))) ') ~
[l:~~ .
:V~.;'.'
~..
l:\econdev\ d \
July 16, 19~8 a steercom\taskrpt.doc
15
r
~-
'1
... r
:::j:::, :
<:k:: .
.....1.......
. . . .. . .. ...
..r.....
::. 'j
I....
..
./.:
': .
..1.:.. ..
ca".,
.l:~ $
-~ 'f" .--
,t ..... i
I .
i
I
i
-~_.
FIGURE 6
C. R.
21
: .. o. '.. .' ~.J
ii
I
:J
,
~
\
) I
.
DAKOTA
STREET
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
16
FIGURE 7
~,,~~ ,,"
./') ~ "
, ....,1/ ,
-/.."?' ;'
, l1.....J ,
~? /'
~1 "
'~"ly. ,
~;",." "
r-r:..~ ,/
.,s... ,
.;t1 '
$~/
'" 1:-1:;:;; ,
r.:,-A.....~; "
t:f1ri'l') I
. '-i#J '
\~..o;"'I:.ou1
, ' ~~= /
t.')) I
l'r.. I
;;~... I
-.._ur;- '" ;
I ll'~ I
fit '
i J /
i & i
. ..es ,
" ~t :
ii:;:' . ,
I ~J !
, ~
I JJ; ,
... '
. ,
1 0----1
1---'11 '
..- I'! :
J '
~,.
I
... I
~~ 1. ., 1:
; ~:~~. J<: i
}]J .....~.. .' 0 I
, -:-1_' ; :
1...~....
, . ,
.. ," ,
.: '
. ,
. ,
. ,
. . .
..
I ~
r
i
,
,
,
,
,
,
,'/
..I--~-
/ i
..
\
. !
I
I
l-
I
'1lt-
"'1"
I'"
'." I:':::
:<~;r;;;
:::!:i~~I~:i~~
..::;:::: :::::
......... .....
....... .....
......... .....
':::::=/::::=
.I....
'l
L
.. 1':
I
!
I ./
/
.1-
~
\
---__...L
!
,....=
: .~,
",\,
133C:!J.S
~ lO>i'tO
17
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 8
-
'"
II
G'>
o
---~
I"JAII\J AV~
---It?
:~I
!~
___JJ I ~
-----p I
i~'1
lP
I
I
---~)
I.H. 13
'" (
! !
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
t:;
J>
^
o
J>
(/)
---1
L___
1---
I
I
I
I I I
l L___
18
-
~
II
(J'\
c
T. H, 1 J
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 9
u
r
n
J>
C/)
J>
Z
-1
C/)
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
, ..
I
I
I
/vfAIN A V
r-- E:
I -----
----
---
--
'l'r--
'.J, I
19
LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS BASED ON SKETCH PLAN
The spreadsheet below details possible improvements and associated 1998 cost
estimates. Improvements include lighting, landscaping, street and sidewalk
improvements, and street furniture. Data sources for these costs include industry
pamphlets for each of the individual elements, and engineer's estimates for the physical
improvements. A very conservative approach was used in establishing these estimates.
Rather than underestimating the cost of the project, it is more likely we have
overestimated each cost. It is important to remember that the total cost is based on the
quality and the quantity of each element. The cost may change if, for example, a more
expensive light standard or a fewer number of benches is desired.
Benches
Decorative Light Fixtures
Ornamental Trees
Angle Parking Islands
Decorative Crosswalk
32 Gallon Trash Receptacles (at each bench)
Tree Guards (Tree Grates separate)
Banners
Nondecorative (cobra head) Lights
Sidewalks (1,940 linear feet X 15' wide)
Downtown Redevelopment Plan*
Street & Utility Improvements (1,000 linear feet)
6
29
29
24
11
6
29
29
5
29,100
1
1,000
Total Cosmetic Improvements
$760.00 $100.00/unit
$4,000.00 included
$600.00 $200.00/unit
$10,000.00 included
$5,000.00 included
$478.00 $100.00/unit
$150.00 $50.00/unit
$150.00 $10.00/unit
$3,500.00 included
$5.00 included
$50,000.00 included
$175.00 included
$5,160.00
$116,000.00
$23,200.00
$240,000.00
$55,000.00
$3,468.00
$5,800.00
$4,640.00
$17,500.00
$145,500.00
$50,000.00
$175,000.00
$841,268.00
* The Downtown Redevelopment Plan is a more comprehensive plan which will provide more
detailed redevelopment plans and final cost estimates.
Not included in the cost estimate:
Acquisition of property
Other Landscaping/Flowers/Sod/Rock
Banner Fixtures (needed to attach banners to light poles)
Fountains ($70,000 and $34,000, based on 1991 estimates)
PLAN ELEMENTS
Li!!htine: Figure 10 is an example of decorative lighting. NSP will install the
lights, and, for a monthly fee, will also maintain and repair the fixtures. A total of
twenty-nine decorative light fixtures are shown on the plan. There are also cobra head
fixtures located at the intersection of County Road. 21 and Main Avenue, at the
intersection of Dakota Street and Main Avenue and at the intersection of Pleasant Street
and Main Avenue.
20
I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 10
Maximum Spacing Re<::::Immendations ).<:::Im St"Jle
Wactac:eIP':lle Heiant
Hi~n ?\!rlOcmar.C3 11 CCW/~ 5FT
70W/15FT
1CQW/1SFT
1 sown SFT
RE!':~3tion
60Fi
SOFi
60Fi
75FT
Ar!!:! of Usa
Resicential
20:::-:-
.lCFi
SuFi
C..:mmerc:aJ
SOFi
20Fi"
....ll:-.
~_rl
3CFi'
'Usa different wattagelP,:le c::mbinations or iixrura :yr:;es for oecer !l~nting
Cenotes cest :ecommencacicn
O~O
~ ~ V
'r~LC7""-:"'
Price Ust
Lic:nt
C.:Jst
I
:~'
:1
:,
Cesigner
70 Watt Acom
1 CO Watt Acom
1S0 Watt Acom
1 CO HP Acom
saai.ao
SSS.CO
670.CO
i ,OSOeCO
'Ii
.;!~ ,
:11
:/1'
,.'~~
,II'
il11
J
, di@",
P':lle
15 ,=T. Fil::ergiass
1 S FT. Aluminum
1,3S<l.,QO
1,3CO.00
Mast Arm
2 '=:xrure
364..00
ease
P ~9-c3St C':lic:e!:
Sc:a'"..ln 5-
ssa.ac
332.aO
.=-::yc:u:cnac: lensas are a'laiiatie ;n
(;cc/'1 c:aar ane whice.
o
J
Iii'
:~j
::;1.1
'iI
:nI
:Ini
:1
:1
,il
:11'i
.1
;~!"
.1
*
./~
~
i\:,.
Ncr..":em S~tas ?':lwer C.::mc;any
4. ~ 4. ,'.lic:;tle! ,'./lad
Minneacctis. ,"IN 5S.LG~
:;g~ 1;'11
G
~"":r:tac :n :e!C/c:ac :ac!!f'
10% :cst......:nsl.lmer ',vas:e
21
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
Landscapine: Landscaping includes finishing any disturbed areas with sod or
decorative plantings. Ornamental trees are located between every light fixture. Planter
boxes and shrubs could be used but are not included in the sketch plan. The cost
estimates include prices for tree guards as illustrated in Figure 11. Not included in the
plan are tree grates, placed along the ground.
Furniture: Street furniture includes six benches and trash receptacles to be
spaced along Main Avenue. The sample designs, shown in Figures 12 and 13, are
finished or coated metal for durability and long wear. Prices vary depending on materials
and style.
Banners: Street banners, which will be attached to the light fixtures, are included
in the costs. No design has been selected at this early stage. Several banner styles may
be desired for various events or times of the year within the community. Banner fixtures
will also be necessary to affix the banners to the light poles.
Pedestrian Features: Sidewalk enhancements include paved decorative
crosswalks and reconstruction of existing sidewalks.
Other: The original 1991 plan identified other amenities, including fountains and
sculptures. The two fountains shown on the 1991 redevelopment plan were estimated to
cost $70,000 and $34,000. A sculpture was also discussed in the past, but no cost
estimates or location is indicated on the 1991 plan. These items have not been included
in the current plan or cost estimates.
22
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 11
iGi
'-~?l1~>t;~i~.,ijWC4;>.(i1i'1W' _
ire! gt.:ardS are c::mmcnly !.ls~ with yeung trees to pre'lida prccec:fen
and supoerrgrcwrh. Waca:.h '/ailey oiTers (We sL'jfes at tree gtr"d'dS. Tne
lirsc is manuiac:urEc :icm lid" ;( i 1/2" !Jar jar stee! a:1d suepol'(~ 0'1
10-~uge she::! steel succor. ~ngs. Tne sec:nd ~pe is ma:1ufac::.:ree
from 1/2" aiame:=: :00. '.'In!o:: is also sucporrc:c jy 10-;E!.!!;e she;: SLa:!
supcer. ,ings. 3ou'1 SL'j1es arE sela :n~"e-:JiecE sec::ens ','/iiie:. jelt
tege!Jie: :or 'fa:::y :nsralfa~ien ;'-:C ,'esevaL The tree ';uares ..a'le a heigr.r
of ~'1e :e;: ana aie avariaei: ;n ail 'iame::iers ,:n:lagE i i O.
Mode!
iGi
Oesc::otion
Wgt. P~ica
rz :bs. Si Jg,CO
I~ar:a; :- ICe f;~a-C
r";abash Valley
1998 Catalog
23
1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
FIGURE 12
DuMor, Inc. Site Furnishings
1998 Catalog
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
ill.
BENCH 93
. SHIPl'ED I<..'iOG<ED DOWN
. SUPPORTS OF 1-1/8" SQ!.JARE SOUD STI~L
. SE.-\T SURFACE ONE-P!ECE CONSTitUCTION
.\MTERlALS J.
SeatingSurtaca: 1/4" x: 1-1/2" stel oar and 2-~/8" 0.0. steel :;;t;:e. ~
Succorts: 1-1/8" SQUare ste! bar.
FaSteners: Stainless steL
Finish: See page i:NO for c.'1oice of polyeste:- po\vde:- firjsh., (Dee?
Red shown)
93-50 6' lor.g. 2 sU1J!=or..s. 239 Ibs. Sid)
9xO S' long, 2 supportS. 301 Ibs. SS3:J
24
FIGURE 13
-~--
~.:. -~."'=-'-r~-.---'~ rr ~[
~~_I_~ _ .r!'.f"~'
..-- - -.-..:----
:1 nrr ;1
I I
if~. . . · · - f.
"~ ~.I R i IJ,
-~
-
Tn2
HANDCRAFlc:'!) fP'=WOE,:; C:JA7Ei:J FINISH)
jWcoa i SlZ6
Tr\2 32 Gallon
TIll 2Z Gallon
0_
Z:~ Dia.x 3S~ Hign
Z:Z~ Dia. x 3S~ i-iign
'N\': (.:sf' P-.a
120 4.:::.00
gS 439.00
Dive=si=i:ci Metal Fao=icato=s
1998 Catalog
25
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
SECTION V
IMPLEMENTATION
This report suggests the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan occur in two
phases as follows.
PHASE 1
The major activities in this phase include completion of planning for the Library
and the actual construction of the facility. It also contemplates the preparation of a
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown. The Redevelopment Plan should be done at a
sufficient level of detail to address individual properties and to provide a basis for
detailed cost estimates. The Redevelopment Plan would also include specific
requirements and regulations unique to the Downtown area which would be intended to
achieve specific redevelopment objectives.
Upon completion of the Redevelopment Plan, the major infrastructure
improvements, including street and sidewalk reconstruction, crosswalk pavers and islands
for angle parking, improvements would be completed. At the same time, the cosmetic
improvements, including landscaping, street lights, banners, benches and trash
receptacles, would be completed. The timing for the completion of this phase is
approximately 18 to 24 months. The total costs associated with this phase are itemized in
the table below:
Benches
Decorative Light Fixtures
Ornamental Trees
Angle Parking Islands
Decorative Crosswalk
32 Gallon Trash Receptacles (at each bench)
Tree Guards (Tree Grates separate)
Banners
Nondecorative (cobra head) Lights
Sidewalks (1,940 linear feet X 15' wide)
Downtown Redevelopment Plan*
Street & Utility Improvements (1,000 linear feet)
6
29
29
24
11
6
29
29
5
29,100
1
1,000
Total Cosmetic Improvements
PHASE 2
$760.00
$4,000.00
$600.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$478.00
$150.00
$150.00
$3,500.00
$5.00
$50,000.00
$175.00
$100.00/unit
included
$200.00/unit
included
included
$100.00/unit
$50.00/unit
$10.00/unit
included
included
included
included
$5,160.00
$116,000.00
$23,200.00
$240,000.00
$55,000.00
$3,468.00
$5,800.00
$4,640.00
$17,500.00
$145,500.00
$50,000.00
$175,000.00
$841,268.00
This phase includes the potential acquisition and redevelopment of properties in
the Downtown area which do not reflect the goals and objectives of the Downtown
Redevelopment Plan. The Downtown Redevelopment Plan would specify which
26
I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
properties were intended for redevelopment and suggest timelines, budgets and funding
sources for such action.
The completion of Phase 1 will provide the impetus for private redevelopment by
creating an atmosphere which will attract developers and redevelopment proposals.
While the Redevelopment Plan will elaborate on redevelopment potential, some of the
properties which should be considered for redevelopment are:
· Monnens Supply (lumber yard)
· Conoco Station
· Lutheran Brotherhood Building
· City property, including the existing library and the parking lot
· Merten's property on the north end of Main Avenue
· Day Care Center
· Single family dwelling at 16154 Main Avenue (north of Co no co Station)
· Single family dwelling located at 16323 Main Avenue (south of radiator shop)
27
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
SECTION VI
FUNDING SOURCES
The section discusses financial options and development incentives and the
various methods available to finance the Downtown Redevelopment improvements. This
section will outline what financial resources are immediately and potentially available for
use in the Downtown area.
CASH
Currently, there are two funds which have cash balances available for use. The
first is an EDA fund which has a current balance of $51,892. The second is the
Downtown TIP account which has a current balance of $87,438. The total of these two
funds is $139,331.
ANNUAL INCREMENT
In 1996, the increment collected from the Downtown TIP district was $45,507
and in 1997, it was $41,278. Even if we assume that the average amount of increment
available remains fixed at $40,000, this dollar amount could finance a TIP bond with a
5% interest rate in the amount of $31 0,000.
ASSESSMENTS
In 1991, the City conducted an extensive analysis of potential Downtown
improvements based on an improvement plan developed by the City in conjunction with
representatives from the Downtown business community which included detailed cost
estimates. The improvements were broken down by two separate areas: the first was
from Pleasant Avenue to the south side of Lakefront Park and the second was from that
point north to the Kop farm. The project improvements which were contemplated
included street reconstruction, landscaping, exposed aggregate sidewalks, islands, a
fountain and decorative crosswalks. The total estimated cost of this project in 1991 was
$780,000. At that time, it appears that the intent was to assess 60% of the street
improvement cost and 100% of the landscaping and sidewalk costs. The projected front
foot assessment was $226 per assessable foot. The assessment for a 50 foot lot would
have been $11,300. One of the issues the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force needs
to address is a recommendation concerning the role of assessments in financing whatever
improvements are finally installed. In 1991, it appears that no consideration was given to
utilizing TIP funds, probably due to the fact that the annual TIP increment was still
dedicated to debt service at that time. The annual increment, as noted above, is now
conservatively estimated at $40,000 per year which is available for eligible activities in
the Downtown district.
I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
28
1998 FUNDING OPTIONS
The following table summarizes the potential source of funds for the
improvements and the proposed uses.
The table shows that the available funds are not sufficient to accomplish all of the
improvements called for in the Sketch Plan. The dollar amount for the TIP bond is a
conservative estimate and assumes only modest growth in the increment received from
the District over the 10 year life of the bond. The cost estimates for the improvements are
either based on catalog prices, costs of comparable projects or staff estimates based on
experience. These are also intended to be conservative and staff has attempted to err on
the high side.
There are three main alternatives available to address this funding gap: (1) the
scale of the project could be reduced to the point where the funds are adequate; (2) the
City could pursue a Demonstration Grant from the Metropolitan Council through the
Livable Communities Program; and (3) the differential amount could be assessed to
benefiting properties Downtown. Additional financial options and development
incentives are addressed in Appendix C to this report.
If the third alternative is chosen, there are 1,905 linear feet of assessable frontage.
This is the total frontage of 2,678 feet less the 773 feet owned by the City. The total
assessment amount would be $177.00 per front foot, or $8,850.00 for an average 50' wide
lot. Street assessments are generally spread out over a 10 year period with 8% interest.
Based on these figures, the average monthly cost (principal and interest) to a business
owner on a 50' wide lot would be $120.95.
This assessment represents 40% of the total cost of the project. Through the use
of TIP funds, CIP funds and bonding, the City will pay 60% of the total costs. In a
commercial area, 100% of the cost of public improvements are generally assessed to the
property owners. In residential areas, the City will pay 60% of the cost of public
improvements, and assess 40% to the benefiting properties. The assessment of 40% of
the project costs represents a substantial reduction from the standard assessment policy in
commercial areas, and is similar to the assessment cost of a street improvement project in
a residential area.
29
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
SECTION VII
CONCLUSION
APPROVAL PROCESS
Following approval of this report by the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force,
this report shall be transmitted to the Economic Development Authority for review and
approval. While not required, the EDA may wish to conduct public hearings to receive
input from downtown business owners and Prior Lake residents on the design proposals
and the funding alternatives.
Once the EDA has approved the report, it must be transmitted to the City Council
for review and approval.
IMPLEMENTATION
Once the City Council has approved the report, the following steps must be taken
in order to implement the actual improvements.
I) The EDA should engage a consultant to assist in the preparation of the
Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
· Formal approval of the Redevelopment Plan, a process similar to the
approval of this report, will also be required. Council approval will
classify this report as one of the City's official documents, which can then
be referenced in the City's Capital Improvements Program, the
Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
· The elements of this report, and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan may
also be incorporated into the City Zoning Ordinance. This action will
require a public hearing and review by the Planning Commission, and
approval by the City Council.
2) The City Council may authorize the design and installation of the physical
improvements. The Downtown Redevelopment Plan will be used to design
the specific public improvements required to implement this plan.
30
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF THE PRIORDALE MALL WORKSHOP
TO:
Prior Lake EDA & Workshop Participants
FROM:
Roger Guenette
DATE:
June 28, 1997
RE:
Results Of Workshop On Commercial Redevelopment
On Tuesday, May 21, 1997, the Prior Lake EDA hosted a workshop to discuss issues and
opportunities relating to the proposed redevelopment of the Priordale Mall and adjacent property.
There were 24 community members present who participated. The participants broke into four work
groups each seeking to address the following questions:
1) What type of commercial/retail development should exist at this location (Specify types of
uses, structures or design)?
2) What issues must be addressed to assure the implementation of this redevelopment concept
(Le. preferred design, relationship to other commercial areas)?
3) To what extent should the City be a financial participant?
Participants were asked to use vision and be wfree thinking" in suggesting development options.
The summary results from each of the four work groups are listed as follows:
GROUP 1
To develop as a retail center with mixed uses and anchor, preferably a Target-type store.
IssueslLimitations
- Lack of critical population
- Proximity to existing residential development
- Image configuration, parking facades, cold dead feeling, access
- Lack of articulated long term vision for community to develop
- Money issues
GROUP 2
Type of commercial development
- Anchor tenant
- No grocery
- Movie/entertainment
- Banquet facility
- Mass merchandise (Wal-MartlTarget)
- Accommodate existing businesses
31
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
Secondary tenants
- Bagel shop
- Coffee shop
- Cleaners
- Specialty shops
- Sporting goods
Central or Core Design
- Community events
- City holiday tree
- Community garden
- Internal court yard
Issues
- Smooth transition for current businesses
- Easy access to property
- Cost to community
GROUP 3
Type of Commercial Development
- Variety store
- Sporting goods
- Jewelry Sto re
- Appliance store
- Movie theater
- Restaurant/Bar
- Barber/Beauty shop
- Card shop
Incorporate existing businesses in development
- Bakery
- Quality antiques
- Entertainment uses
- Coffee shop
- Youth or related teenslbusiness center
- Bike shop/Exercise equipment
- Unique craft shops
- Small scale factory outlet shops (youth oriented)
- Major anchor to attract larger volume clothing stores
Public open spaces throughout center
- Patio tables
- Ice rink, warming house
- Fountains
- Gardens
- Gazebo
32
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
."
GROUP 4
- Smaller retail outlets
- Medium size building which concentrates businesses
- Mixed use business - theater
. Multi-purpose restaurant. Applebee's
. Multi-story first floor - retail. second floor office or municipal government office
. Dime store - gifts. etc.
. Area for professional office
- first level retail - second level office
- Anchor - Big Box
Priorities
. Mixed use/theater
. Anchor
- Professional office
. Small outlets
- Housing
Issues
- Access
- Design
- Tenant demand
. Community support/political attitude
. People mover/traffic
- Dealing with existing businesses so they stay
. Impact of downtown
- Community identity
Priority Issues
- Design
- Tenant demand
- Financial
. Community support
- Access
In viewing these results and listening to the ensuing discussion that occurred when the four
groups reconvened into the general meeting the following themes became apparent:
· There is a desire to have better quality retail facilities with a greater diversity of retail
businesses (e.g. specialty shops).
· The redevelopment concept should offer options for residents of all ages. Facilities such as a
health club, teen center, pool hall were specifically mentioned. There was a desire to have the retail
complex encompass mixed uses and serve as a meeting place for community events/activities.
· Regarding an anchor tenant, it was recommended that a department store ala Target be
included. When the participants were asked about a supermarket serving as the anchor tenant there
were several vocal objections and the prevailing sentiment was that a grocery store would be a poor
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
33
choice for the development.
· There was a concern that the existing retailers not be ~pushed out" as a result of the
redevelopment.
· The existing road network and parking must be upgraded to make the area more accessible
and user friendly.
· Entertainment options such as a movie theater, additional restaurants and book store were
recommended to be included.
· There was general consensus that the City should be a financial participant in order to
promote quality redevelopment. Although one participant believed that the entire process should be
privately financed.
I have attempted to provide an accurate and objective summary of the proceedings as they
occurred. If anyone in attendance believes that this information is not representative of what transpired,
please contact City Manager Frank Boyles (612) 447-4230 and relate your objection.
I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
34
APPENDIX B
LIST OF EXISTING BUSINESSES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA
AS OF NOVEMBER, 1997
4590 COLORADO ST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING L 13-14, B 13 PLAT OF PRIOR LAKE
4616 COLORADO ST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING L 13-14, B 13, PLAT OF PRIOR LAKE
4636 COLORADO ST SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING L 11 & 12, B 13, PLAT OF PRIOR
LAKE
4646 COLORADO ST BRUCE CAPRA INSURANCE L 8-10, B 13, PLAT OF PRIOR LAKE
4671 COLORADO ST COLORADO STREET STATION L 3-5, B 15, PLAT OF PRIOR LAKE
4690 COLORADO ST SCOTT-RICE TELEPHONE CO Ll-7 B 13 PLATOFPRIORLAKE
o DAKOTA ST PUBLIC UTILITY N30FEETOF E40FEETOF 11 & E
40 FEET 12-4
4667 DAKOTA ST DAKOTA PROFESSIONAL E45 FEET LOTS 1,2 & 3 - 5
BUILDING.
4730 DAKOTA ST LITTLE LAKERS MONTESSORI W 84 FEET LOTS 5 & 6 - 9
SCHOOL
4769 DAKOTA ST "THE MAIN OFFICE"
A) DAKOTA HOUSING
B) FRANK 1. WICKER ASSOC.
C) FOR RENT
D A.S.!. USA INe.
4772 DAKOTA ST ORTH SIDE
4773 DAKOTA ST PAT'S BEAUTY SHOP
4775 DAKOTA ST (SOUTH SIDE)
OBERHAMER DEALER
4781 DAKOTA ST (SOUTH SIDE)
RES. RENTAL
4785 DAKOTA ST (SOUTH SIDE)
REMOTE EFFECTS SYSTEMS,
INC.
4786 DAKOTA ST STORAGE BLDG. TANKS E ERLY 45 FEET OF 7-10
4792 DAKOTA ST DENTIST DR. RM BLISS W 55 FEET OF 4,5,6-10
FAMILY DENTAL CARE
4805 DAKOTA ST AMOCO OIL STATION LOT 1, BLOCK 1 P.F. INC.
ADDITION
EX W 55 FEET OF 4 5 & 6-10
I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
35
16111 MAIN AVE
SINGLE F AMIL Y
JIM GffiBISH
A) DAN'S AUTO BODY
B STAR TRmUNE
KUSTOM KOLOR
PEARSONS AUTO BODY
PEARSONS AUTO BODY
GARY GffiBISH
PRIOR LAKE MOTORS
GARY GffiBISH
PROFINISHERS AUTO BODY
SINGLE F AMIL Y
16113 MAIN AVE
16115 MAIN AVE
16117 MAIN AVE
16125 MAIN AVE
16151 MAIN AVE
NELSON WOODCRAFT
VIERECK FIREPLACE SALES
RESIDENTIAL
J & B FURNITURE APT UNIT
4 PLEX
LEGAL SERVICES
16154 MAIN AVE
16161 MAIN AVE
16173 MAIN AVE
16174 MAIN AVE
16176 MAIN AVE
16186 MAIN AVE
CONOCO STA nON
SPEIKER BLDG
A) SPEIKER PL AGENCY
B) SPEIKER TAX SERVICE
C) ANDERSON FAMILY
HOMES
D ALLIED INSURANCE
CAR UEST
LIFE EXTENSION, WEIGHT
LOSS & TRAINING CENTER
HAIRMATEITAN MATE
PUBLIC PARKING LOT
O'MALLEYS PARKING LOT
O'MALLEYS ON MAIN
MONNENS SUPPLY
16189 MAIN AVE
16197 MAIN AVE
16203 MAIN AVE
16211 MAIN AVE
16211 MAIN AVE
16211 MAIN AVE
16214 MAIN AVE
16220 MAIN AVE
THE FRANKLIN COMPANIES
PRIOR LAKE PROF. BLDG.
WILLOW GREEN NATURAL
CRAFTS (PRIOR LAKE PROF.
BLDG.
LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD
PRIOR LAKE PROF. BLDG
LffiRARY
16224 MAIN AVE
16228 MAIN AVE
16244 MAIN AVE
1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
36
35 1 22 13.33 S 13.33 A OF
CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A
I-CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A
2-CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A
3-CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A
4-CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A
LOTS 10-11, BLOCK 10, ORIGINAL
PLAT
N'ERL Y 2 FEET OF 8 ALL OF 9-10
LOTS 3 & 4-9
S'ERLY 48 FEET OF 8-10
W 100 FEET OF 7-10
25 FEET OF E 75 FEET OF 1-4
S 13 FEET OF N 38 FEET OF E 75
FEETOF 1-4
E 67 FEET OF 5 & 6-9
LOT 1 EX N 25 FEET OF E 75 FEET
ALL EX S 13 FEET OF N 38 FEET OF
E 75 FEET OF 1
E 38 FEET OF S 15 FEET OF 3 & N 10
FEET OF E 38 FEET OF 4-4
12-3
N 1/2 OF 11-3
S 1/2 OF 11-3
S 1/2 OF 7-3
8-3 EX. N 1 FOOT
9 & N 1 FOOT OF 8-3
4-4 LOT 3 EX E 38 FEET OF S 15
FEET
S 40 FEET OF LOT 4 & N 1/2 OF 5-4
STRIP 50 FEET X 151 FEET LOT 6
BLK4&H&DRR
S 1/2 OF 5 & N 35 FEET OF 6-4
S 15 FEET OF 6-4
S 27.5 FEET OF 7-4 EX 20 FEET X 20
FEET
16244 MAIN AVE MINNEGASCO 7-4 20 FEET X 20 FEET IN
16281 MAIN AVE CARLSON HARDWARE & N'ERLY 1/2 OF 2 S'ERLY 3-14
FRAMED IN GLORY OUT LOT A LANGHORST ADD
16292 MAIN AVE DAN'S AUTO REPAIR
16298 MAIN AVE SEBASTIAN AUTOMOTIVE 1-2 15
16299 MAIN AVE EXTRA INNINGS N'ERLY 5 FEET OF 1-1 CATES
S'ERLY 1/2 OF 2-14
16306 MAIN AVE VFW POST 6208 N 48 FEET OF 1-2 OF 2 CATES
E 14 FEET OF 3-2 CATES
LOT 3 & 4 & E 30 FEET OF 5-2
CATES
16309 MAIN AVE BODY SHOP RADIATOR & PlO 1-1 COM. SW COM OF 1
AUTO REPAIR
16318 MAIN AVE JOE'S PIZZA PARLOR 2-2 N 29.25 FEET OF S 81 FEET LOT
1
16323 MAIN AVE RESIDENCE & PARKING LOT N 1/2 LOT 2 BLK 1 CATES
16328 MAIN AVE DG SHOEMAKER & CO PIO 1 & 2 BLK 2 LYING SCATES
4717 PLEASANT ST PRIOR LAKE FLORIST L 1 & E 40' L2, B 3, CATES
ADDITION
4770 PLEASANT ST VIDEO UPDATE
4770 PLEASANT ST FONGS RESTAURANT
37
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16,1998
APPENDIX C
POTENTIAL FINANCIAL OPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES
In any process where a City or Economic Development Authority provides
assistance to a private developer in developing or redeveloping property, there are a
variety of methods by which assistance can be provided, beyond simply writing the
developer a check for some or all of his costs. Following is a summary of various
methods which have been used by other communities.
Tax Increment Financin~ (TIF1: TIP is probably the most common form of
assistance offered by communities. In general, TIF is a method of financing qualifying
costs of the project from the increased property taxes generated from the project that
would not occur "but for" the assistance provided by the City. The difference between
the existing property taxes on a parcel of land which is divided among the City, county
and school district and the increased property taxes which are used exclusively by the
EDA or City for a term of years to finance qualifying costs is known as the tax increment.
The taxes generated from the parcel before development continue to be distributed to the
respective taxing authorities. Any increased property taxes beyond this base amount are
available for assisting the project. Proceeds from the tax increments received can be used
for a wide variety of activities including property acquisition, site clearance, streets and
utilities, relocation, rehabilitation, appraisals, legal fees and so on.
Tax Abatement: Tax Abatement is a relatively new tool for cities to use. It
allows a city, county or school district to abate all or a portion of taxes levied against
property by the governmental unit. This is an alternative for cities to use in place of TIP
to allow assistance to occur without the restrictions imposed by the use of TIP. The
amount of taxes abated may not exceed the greater of (a) 5% of the current levy, or (b)
$100,000. The abatement may be based on (1) a specific dollar amount per year or in
total, (2) the increase in taxes resulting from improvement of the property, (3) the
increase in taxes resulting from increases in the market value or tax capacity of the
property, or (4) in any other manner deemed appropriate. The City may grant abatements
for a maximum of 10 years.
Revolvin~ Loan Funds: Revolving funds are established with revenues from
various sources, and loans are then made to assist various development activities. The
City or EDA can determine criteria and eligibility for use of these funds. Typically, the
loans are made at below-market interest rates. The fund is built up over time through
repayment of the loans with interest.
Reduction or Deferment of Assessments: The City can agree to either reduce
assessments for project improvements or defer the time for repayment of the assessments
to occur. This does require some other method of financing the unpaid or deferred
assessments.
38
I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998
Reduction or Deferment of Fees: As above, the City can agree to reduce or
defer fees charged by the City such as park dedication fees, sewer and water area charges,
water tower fees and so on.
Land Assembly: The City can undertake the assembly of land needed for a
development and incur the costs associated with that activity. This eliminates the
assembly cost for the developer and gives him one less thing to worry about.
Annual Appropriation: The City can make an annual appropriation from City
funds and dedicate that appropriation to specific development purposes. This reduces the
availability of City dollars for other activities carried out by the City.
Economic Development Authority Powers: EDA's have broad authority to
undertake development activities under State law. In some cases, the exercise of one or
more of these powers on behalf of a developer might remove an obstacle to the
development which the developer would not otherwise be able to overcome. The land
assembly process discussed above is an example.
Structure of the Transaction: In some cases, the structure of the deal may be all
the assistance required to make a project feasible. This can include modifications in
payment schedules, deferral of fees and assessments, reduced developer equity
participation and so on.
Public or Private Utilities: In some cases, utility companies have assistance
programs which are available to assist in industrial and commercial development. The
company's motivation is to generate demand for their products and services.
Floor Area Ratio: Allowing a developer to construct a project at a higher density
may be all that is needed to reach feasibility.
Phasin2 of Site Requirements: This involves deferring the provision of certain
site improvements, such as landscaping, to a later date, thereby allowing the developer to
concentrate expenditures on start-up activities essential to the business.
Provision of Streets and Utilities: Normally, developers are responsible for
financing and constructing infrastructure improvements such as streets and utilities. The
City could provide these items through a public improvement project and assess the cost,
thereby reducing the up-front costs to the developer.
39
l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc
July 16, 1998