Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 1998 - Workshop ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORKSHOP Tuesday, July 7, 1998 5 :30 p.m. Fire Station I. Summarize Downtown Redevelopment Committee Task Force Report (attached - please read before meeting) II. Issues on Implementation of Report A. Should we complete City funded streetscape improvements? 1. before development begins? 2. before redevelopment plan is completed? B. Should we complete all streetscape improvements which require special assessments? What portion of the improvements should be assessed, if any? c. Should a specific sketch of the area be prepared at a cost of $3500 as part of a marketing plan to provide a "vision"? D. What type of development in downtown should we support first? E. What form should the development support take? F. Should a comprehensive marketing plan focused on existing business be prepared? MINUTES OF THE PRIOR LAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1998,5:30 p.m. FIRE STATION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call to Order: Vice President Underferth called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Present were: Vice President Underferth, Commissioners Gresser, Kedrowski, and Schenck, City Attorney Pace, City Manager Boyles, Assistant City Manager Woodson, Planning Director Rye, Planner Tovar, and Recording Secretary Oden. President Barsness was absent. 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Vice President Underferth led the Pledge of Allegiance and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 3. Approval of Minutes a) April 20, 1998 MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY GRESSER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1998 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Gresser, and Schenck, abstention Underferth, the motion carried. 4. Consent Agenda a) none 5. Presentations aJ none 6. Public Hearings a) none 7. Old Business: aJ Status Report on Downtown Loan Brochure Distribution · Executive Director Boyles said Jim Sherack who had presented the program to the EDA prepared a loan brochure for distribution. 16200 E61S!Iil~A.lj',~ Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 417-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . Planning Director Rye said it had not been distributed yet. . Vice President Underferth said it should be held until the downtown redevelopment plan is finalized, distributed, and implementation is underway. . Commissioner Gresser asked how close is the downtown redevelopment report to having criteria established for redevelopment? . Vice President Underferth said it will be presented at the next EDA meeting. · Commissioner Schenck said perhaps brochures should be mailed out in advance so businesses are notified before they seek financing on their own. It would be prudent to consider a double mailing, earlier and then w hen the plan is finalized. . Vice President Underferth said if one was mailed out now and then the downtown redevelopment plan is sent out in a month, businesses may take immediate use of the program and then when the downtown redevelopment plan is done they would still be assessed. It should be used as a tool for the redevelopment. . Commissioner Gresser suggested a notice in the paper regarding the program. . Executive Director Boyles said if it is run as a public service announcement, there is no charge. It is run on a space available basis. . Planning Director Rye said there were perhaps thirty affected businesses. . Vice President Underferth said the downtown redevelopment committee will have recommendations for the EDA. One recommendation will be for the EDA to visit downtown businesses encouraging their support for downtown redevelopment. b) Status Report on Distribution of TIF Policy 61598EDA.DOC 2 . Executive Director Boyles said the TIF Policy has been distributed through the Chamber of Commerce list in an effort to make businesses aware that there is now a written policy. . Commissioner Schenck asked about those who are not on the Chamber list. . Vice President Underferth said there were some on the mailing list, about 20, that were not chamber members. 8. New Business a) Vacant Parcel Inventory . Executive Director Boyles said the EDA has as one of its goals to have staff provide a list of vacant parcels. That has been done through the Planning Department. A list has been supplied including zoning, status of sewer and water, etc. . Commissioner Schenck asked whether 4.5 acres in business park is included. . Executive Director Boyles said it was not. . Commissioner Schenck asked about the parcel marketed to the City for the library. . Planning Director Rye said it was included. . Commissioner Schenck said the southwest corner of 42 and 83 is shown as section 28 but is not in the list. . Planner Tovar said the report is missing a page. The staff will supply the entire report at the next meeting. . Vice President Underferth asked whether the Vierling and Jeffers property were both in ag preserve. . Planning Director Rye said the Jeffers property and Vierling property south of CSAH 42 is in green acres but not ag preserve. The Vierling property north of CSAH 42 is still in ag preserve. The difference is green acres confers tax status as agricultural which establishes the tax 61598EDA.DOC 3 rate as agricultural preserve imposes a prohibition on the development of the property, the minimum is eight years. . Commissioner Schenck asked if the property is still farmed, after eight years what is its tax status? . Planning Director Rye said it can then continue as green acres but can be developed. . Executive Director Boyles asked is there further information the EDA would like regarding vacant properties? . Commissioner Schenck said properties which are under green acres and ag preserve should be identified. Since the only property the City holds is 4.5 acres, is it involved in marketing the property? . Consultant Guenette said if asked he assists with redevelopment information, contacts, system for paying for appraising, mall property, property adjacent to it. Beyond that he has not been approached to assist in any way. . Commissioner Gresser asked about hiring a broker on a commission basis. . Consultant Guenette said the City does not need to at the present time. Information on the property has been sent to a mailing list of commercial Realtors and developers, to reinform them of the availability of the parcel. . Commissioner Schenck said looking at current and future inventory coming out of the ag preserve, is annexation a solution to the shortage of property? . Consultant Guenette said the Mesenbrink property is more commercial industrial. The EDA should see how the downtown redevelopment committee report is received. . Commissioner Gresser asked, related to annexation, will there be commercial industrial demand at that time? . Vice President Underferth said as inventory relates to number five, the City will have a lot more inventory. 61598EDA.DOC 4 . Consultant Guenette said the population has increased. There are many different factors. The whole area will have a lot more traffic. If there are specific areas that need to be attended to they should be looked at now. . Commissioner Gresser asked under each category of zoning, what category falls under that for proposed zoning? . Vice President Underferth said it is hard to deal with a list and map. Staff should blow it up. . Executive Director Boyles said there could be a key on a larger map which shows status with respect to Agricultural Preserve, and green acres, and identifies what can be developed by zoning district. . Planning Director Rye said they will need a document to go with it. 9. Other Business a) Review 1998 EDA Goals and Objectives . Executive Director Boyles said the TIF policy is done. They can review and comment on the County Finance policy; and local effort TIF from cities. The business park is nearly done and the Council will be dealing with the utility extension request tonight. . Executive Director Boyles said the Downtown Redevelopment Committee will meet with two developers to review the plan. In the Priordale mall site, Boderman continues to attempt to lease. . Nothing has been done regarding Goal 4. Goal 5 was just discussed and Goal 6 is no longer relevant at Priordale. . Commissioner Kedrowski said the goals should be revisited and updated for 1998/1999. 10. Announcements or Correspondence a) . Consultant Guenette said Northland Forest Projects, Dick Pyle, wants EDA members to see his operation. He wants to make sure his facility would conform to city ordinances and land use requirements. He does not want to be confronted with nuisance issues. Don Rye, Bob 61598EDA.DOC 5 .' .. , ..' , ,- c. Barsness, and Roger Guenette went through the facility. There is noise. With a residential subdivision south through the business park, he does not want complaints. The purchase agreement stipulates $1.00 square foot. He will take soil borings but will not pay for soil correction. · Executive Director Boyles said the EDA may wish to give the existing tenants of the business park an opportunity to see Northland as well. However, they do not want to give them the impression that they have approval authority. · City Attorney Pace said there are ordinances and code provisions pertaining to operation and uses and whether or not the uses are permitted. · Consultant Guenette said what if the businesses don't like the Northland operation? · Executive Director Boyles said they have the opportunity to participate in the public process. · City Attorney Pace asked whether the Northland project was contingent upon TIF financing. · Executive Director Boyles said yes. · City Attorney Pace asked was it his idea to have the EDA come look at his business? · Consultant Guenette said Mr. Pyle wants to know if his investment will be secure from complaints. · Councilmember Kedrowski said he is trying to be a good neighbor. · City Attorney Pace asked is the sound study going to provide any assurances? · Vice President Underferth said Mr. Pyle is not looking for written assurances. Whoever has contact with him should suggest he invite potential neighbors. 61598EDA.DOC 6 . Consultant Guenette said his concern is the residential subdivision in south. Planers and saws run in the summer with the doors open. the question is will the noise carry off the property line. . Commissioner Schenck said Regency Coffee is a direct correlation. . Consultant Guenette said that use was not identified in the front end throughout that facility. This person is prepared to make a major investment. . Commissioner Schenck said businesses expect certain activities to take place. Current businesses in the park are willing to put up with noise and smells in the park. It is bordered by a residential area. He thought the residents complained about Regency. . City Attorney Pace said the point is disturbances at a property line. If Mr. Pyle wants assurances himself, he has to have determined decibel levels. A business with nuisance potential may have buffering requirements added. . Consultant Guenette asked is there a decibel level requirement at the property line? . Planning Director Rye said there are state standards which are adopted by the City. . Consultant Guenette said noise should be measured at the existing Northland operation to see if it complies with state requirements. . Executive Director Boyles acknowledged that the current Northland operation is smaller than the proposed operation in Prior Lake. However, Pyle indicates that most of the additional space will be used for warehousing. . Vice President Underferth said he wants to go in knowing this is a business that conforms, not worry about having complaints and upset people. . Executive Director Boyles said Thursday at 10:00 a.m. the EDA will meet at 12400 Portland, Suite 115 to tour the Northland plant in Burnsville. 61598EDA.DOC 7 . Vice President Underferth said the next meeting would be July 20th at 5:30 in the Fire Station. 11. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ~ I . ) / /~ ) - Recording Secretary 61598EDA.DOC 8 If DRAFT A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE DOWNTOWN Prepared by THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE REVISED June 5, 1998 SECTION I INTRODUCTION HISTORY The City of Prior Lake has considered the redevelopment ofthe downtown area several times in the past. One of the 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) COUIIty Road 21 extension, 2) Recreational trail system, 3) Gateway and Priordale Mall access, 4) Lakefront Park,S) 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 of the 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% of the 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$11,300.00 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 ofthe 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 June 5, 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 of the 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 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 (POL), and downtown business owners. The members of the Task Force are: Robert Barsness (EDA) Ron Ceminsky (PAC) Karl Dingman (Business Owner) Dawn Glatzel-Beck (POL) Tom Kedrowksi (ED A) Dick Kuykendall (PC) Jim Speiker (Business Owner) Coco Tremaine (Business Owner) Dick Underferth (EDA) Paul Viereck (Business Owner) Pat Heaney (P AC 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: I. Recommend a theme or "Look" for the Prior Lake Downtown area. 2 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 "- .... 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 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. 3 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 FIGURE 1 . ~ ! !i .. i! I ii' .' ~~ !~ I. ....OTA ~ ;~ ; .' !I tl. -..-. 1'-...... H I i ~ .:; I ~ i - I e1: I . . . .' ~~; ~; ; C. R. 21 I\j .. :i ~ I ~ n.a:T 4 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc JuneS, 1998 / l\ I? .- .... ... ~ 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 A of this 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 Elderly Housing Adult Day Care Group Day Care/Nursery School MedicallDental Office Community Centers x x 5 1: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 ." " Library Museums/Art Galleries Parks/Open Space X (Passive parks permitted with limitations on SIze PoliceIFire Stations Public Service Structures (water towers, etc. Animal Handling x x Appliance, Small Engine and Bicycle Repair X (Small animals only, no outdoor activi X (Limitations on outdoor use X (No drive-up facilities X X Banks Restaurants (with and without liquor) Bed & Breakfast Establishments Businessrrrade Schools Business Services Clubs/Lodges Convention & Exhibition Centers Dry Cleaning/Laundering X X Food Service Home Occupations X X X (Drop off and pick u facilities onl X X (Accessory to residential uses Hotel/Motel Motor Fuel Stations Offices Printing Process/Supply Private Entertainment X X X X Retail Service Uses Studios Wholesale Uses X X X Showrooms X 6 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 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 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. 7 I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 FIGURE 2 . Villa;~ ie~::tiiiC3::c:n . Unif=::7: s;ee.es . C..:r:sis;;!~-: $;:3e:::; . ?rcrr:cdc::atlS~3.s.::~at ,.;;; S tr'agc P ~r7':i t:..:r~: . =e!1:::.~es . ira.sM ~e~:::3~e . Sease::.! .:!.a~:e~s ,I I' ,) I' ,/ I' ,/ I' Far.<:r:; Lar.e S~:~~!S~cel Ai.':e:"'!i:"1 Z:."':e: so -~. m:r:i~:.:r.-: ?~~~s:;,,:an Z::::e: ~.:.. .":"::r::r:-::.::":": 8 I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc JuneS, 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. 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. 9 I :\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 FIGURE 3 a..ner.:zl Cuic;~ .=nnc;:te:s . ~m=te:s: Ar:::itae::.::;J C:-:.r:ie-..3:-: '=~~~::-:4n .~ar.=!y S=:1le_ ::a::::::.I. :-:~::=:;I ,:~_:it:e~. Ar.:c:.:/ac<:n: rnc:.:~~ arC::::~'::'J C::~!3ii.:s. n!~~ en::-.J':~s. !!=. :wn!nc;:s OInc C.r.Qcie:s: '-:-::Vtc::! we:;t.":e!' ~rc:a-=:::1 fc:* .:e-----=~:ri2r..s .r.: .C!:~=:::::: af term amen; :~iic::r::;.:s. Suire!r.c; .'d.tl!ri.Ls: Ac::::!:1:-..:.te:! :-:c:::cn.ai. :,i.:::r:CJ ~tJ2ri~e~ .. inc:::.-;:::;ci::: !;t ':::.0< or .s::::.!t as ,::-::-:::;'(,>/ :~:ic::::; :,:,:;:e:-::I :3 ;n!f=~~. MocuLadc:m: Aftc:.:f.cicn of :acc:~s. :ec!!:t:cn of :eoils. mYU':m :( ;:rc;:cr.:cn:s (Ie:':c;:.': ef f:lC::;Cl!. wincew::. ee::..).. l 1 ?rQ~or.:on: Str..:c:.:re =:~;!er=:ar.:3 .c:i.ae:nt ~:.::1c::r.;3 :n ::e:;.",::. ,( / m=i::;. an:: cve..;!l :=Ie cf efe::':~r.::s f ." 'I ~ .L. .!-r=:: - ---~~ I ~11"IIII"I~ .\.-.:t....-....=:~ . ~ . "'" 11 - .:----=~ Allc;nmenc: I' , I ~f ~'nc:.:::~ .~Cr::::tCiii ;n-;::;~:':":e::: ::.t I . f #f C:ec;ris. s:.::::: as 2c:::!:: ::;r.c::::c;. . : I / 'Ninc:::w:s. awn::::;:!. ee:. .if ,- 'I il /~ I r ,!l v ' " / -;- " \ F"!ne:s:.-cc::::: 'j~ns=....e:':=/.~! ,~c;.:~ a::~~~3:::;r: re'/el (lar;:e 'Nfr::::W -:=~:"::r:;~j. .=r.:r:c:.~~ 'Nir::=.N ecenr::;.s. ~~: ~ r , G..ner31 .:es:;.., ,=rinc::;:ies- E.::ami=fes: S~e'C:3jtJ =:;~i;:~en:: P~::er s~~r.in; :f :~-:::;::c:c:;y harc'Nare .r:c ::'"':a~ !"::;::::-:e:-::. I 1)lJClasl~ ., -"e" -., -"c" 1 _ ...._ .. ~ _ 1.1,..... .. I Sic;::ac;!!: C.::,:,,:;::r.-:.e:'i::;.-., :: :''':e ::.;:ic::~; =--:GlCi::~~. .:t:=::~=::4J :: .'4~c~, ~i~::!!-:: :: :::e I .~ "r j.\ .- r"~ '/ ; ~:..:-. i1 , ~ a ~ r -: ~ ~r:r:':;r/ $:;::. ~::. 10 I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5,1998 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. 11 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc JuneS, 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 of this 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 of the 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. 12 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5,1998 . :. FIGURE 4 EJ . . : J ~j .~..,..-y--=p-,- I . I -. . -'-I ~-;.,.-, , " I I I I I f {--'. ,".....11 I I I I -:--:.:j-:::;::':"'-J.~'TI 13 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 FIGURE 5 C. R 21 I , 0; 1I1 -, I 0'" I , ..' - ! I .. I I .. .' , \ s . ! ~ == ~ = i 't ,. }.~ 0= _ -:i. . i I j 14 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5,1998 i ~ .. J!~ In- , -- i \ $ \ t .. I I :1::.::: ./> . !. i '''/- I.;.; ;: 1:::,: --::1:::::: 01mffi ...:1...... i I I I- I FIGURE 6 133H.lS v lO>fvO . . "," ... ..~ -. : . 12 .~ ':) 15 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June5, 1998 , , --- , ---- I I ! 1 t i . i"'! V '-A !:~- ..J~el :1 ::,1 ... J .......1. .. .....[... . ..1.... .. - "I" .J : I ,- \ !"'l \ -T c FIGURE 7 1 :'. '.', = 'i;: : . ----------1 ~. 11~--,; :", f 1.1 : : ~J _.. '.. · ..J ' .~ \~~'~:f.:~".f.J:' :~~.~:..,7.~'~::..ip;; i i \ \ . .! I I I. ~I -1"' F' . .13" ~ I"*e .. ....I.... :::1>: .:;;;;;/;;:;; '.:::;;:1;:;;: :;::::::; ::::: . . ..... ..... :::::'1"::: ~ 'l"" L ../ .., I i I , -----.4. ! t " i - \ ~ \ 133~l.S V1.0>fva 16 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 ~--.- .... FIGURE 8 - I 0 ,. II ]> ^ 0" I D a I ---i I ]> I (/) I ---i ---~ L___ ---, !~I !~ 'd _~~JY cL___ ---r I ~I lY MAIN AVE T.H. 13 1 ( 17 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 ,--- I I I I I I I I I L___ FIGURE 9 - U ~ I II n 0"' J> I 0 (/) J> I Z I -l I (/) I -l I ~ MAIN AVE r---__ I --___ I I I I T.H. 13 tv,<j( -- k"('f.2 Sf 18 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 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 Iinearfeet 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 $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 Liehtine: 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 A venue. 19 I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 FIGURE 10 Maximum Spacing Re<=::lmmendaticns AC::lm Style Wattac;eIJ:lo:lle Heiaht HiC;n ?9rtormanca 11CCW/15r I 70W/1SFT 1 COW/15FT 1S0W/15FT Re<::-e,ation SCFT 50FT SOFT 7SFi Area of Usa Flesidential SS. I 2:Fl 40FT 50FT Ccmmerc:al 50FT 20FT" 2SF7- 30FT 'Usa different wattage/Pole combinations or tbm.:re :ypes tor :ectar ilghting Oenoces best recommendation - - 0.0 ~ 5L .. '..,... '''-'Lr:::::7'"'-:- Price Ust Uc:ht c.ost Cesigner 70 Wart Acorn 100 Wart Acorn 150 Wart Acorn 1 CO HF Acorn ssa/.co SSS.CO 670.00 l,OSO.CO Po:lfe 1 S Fl. Fiberglass 15 FT. Aluminum 1,354..00 1,3CO.CO Mast Arm 2 Fixtc..:re i I i,1 ,}i~ 364..00 Base ?re-cast Concrete Screw-In a" 550.00 332.:0 P::lycar::onate lenses are a'taiiai:ie 'n boeh c~ear an': white. - o - ;00 .rl"; 'II ~! :~ ! J\5? Norti'1ern States ?o:lwer Ccmpany 4.14. Nic::trec Mall Minneapolis. MN 55401 :is::! 2~,1 G r::~ncec:n reC"ic:.ec ,:acer 1 a~~ :c.s:--...::nsr..:rr:er ",vas:a 20 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 Landscapin~: 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. 21 I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 Wabash Valley 1998 Catalog l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc JuneS, 1998 FIGURE 11 iGi J~~l.~>.nfl.i~.ilm~C:{l1mw'_ Tree guards are commcnly lJsee ',vim J'cung trees to provide protection and supccrr growrh. 'Nacash '/alle'l ~tf2rs :wo s;yles ot tree guards. Tne firse is manuiac:ured :iCm 1/d." ;( i 1/2" Ilae bar steal and supporred by 10-Jauge sheet seee! succor. ,ings. Tne sec::lid type is iiia:iuiac:ured tram i/2" diame!e[ ~cd. wnic:,: :s also SiJcporrec J'f iO-;auge shea; sree! suppar. rings. Sou'1 s;yies are sclG :n ~Nc-:Jiec~ secticns ','/iiic:1 Joit tcge;l1er lor eas! :nsrallarion ara ,.emc'Iai. Tne tree guarcs :-tave .: heignc at n'le fee! and are .:'Iaiiacle ;n ail :iame:oicrs en page i i O. Model iGi Descti!llion Far eai :- rae S~~C Wgt. n'es. Price Si J9.GO 22 ,. ["~ FIGURE 12 -::--: -~~~.;.~;~~~~:~~ 11.'11 ;......_:-~~~~~~~~~~~;:-~~ ~~.;...~v~~~~~ - .~.~. ~.;:.:::..~.. DuMor, Inc. Site Furnishings 1998 Cacalog I:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5,1998 ilL BENCH 93 . SHIPPED K.'iOCK!D DOWN . SUPPORTS OF 1-VS" SQ!,JARE SOllD STEEL . Sc.~T SURFACE ONE-PIECE CONSTRUCTION ,V\ATERIALS Seating Surtaca: 1/4" x 1-1/2" steel bar and 2-:3/8" 0.0. steel pt;:e. Succorts: 1-1/S" square steel bar. ~eners: Stainless steel. Finish: See page cwo for c.~oice of polyester powder finish. (Dee::: Red. sho\ml 93-50 S. lor..g. 2 supportS. 239 Ibs. SloG 9".....aO 8' long, 2 suppor..5. 301 Ibs. ss:33 ~ 23 FIGURE 13 '~-~~4 ~-= - - -~'-r; H ~~r ~ "[-:. .r. t~~ a t' !-lff i] I...... irf, ..' -1..1 li"---, TR2 HANDCRAFTeD (Powoe.~ COATED FINISH) ,WeoG. ~ StZ% TR2 32 Gallon TR1 22 Gallon O_1I:N4 25" Oia.x 36" High 22" Oia. x 36" High WI: I..Jsr p",a 120 459.00 95 439.00 Diversified Metal Fabricators 1998 Catalog 24 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 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 Iinearfeet X 15' wide) Downtown Redevelopment Plan* Street & Utility Improvements (1,000 linear feet) $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 $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 Total Cosmetic Improvements $841,268.00 PHASE 2 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 25 I :\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5,1998 "-..'" 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 libr~ 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) 26 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 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 TIF 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 TIF 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 TIF 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 proj ect 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 ofthe 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 TIF funds, probably due to the fact that the annual TIF 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. 27 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5,1998 1998 FUNDING OPTIONS The following table summarizes the potential source of funds for the improvements and the proposed uses. $87,438.00 $40,000.00 $310,000.00 $68,000.00 $505,438.00 DIFFERENCE $615,500.00 $133,500.00 $42,268.00 $50,000.00 $841,268.00 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 B to this report. lfthe 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. 28 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 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. 1) 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. 29 I: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 APPENDIX A LIST OF EXISTING BUSINESSES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AS OF NOVEMBER, 1997 ADDRESS ..... NAME OF BUSINESS . LOCATION 4590 COLORADO ST SINGLE F AMIL Y 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 FAMILY 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 S1REET STATION L 3-5, B 15, PLAT OF PRIOR LAKE 4690 COLORADO ST SCOTT-RICE TELEPHONE CO Ll-7 B 13, PLAT OF PRIOR LAKE ..... .../>. //.> >......... .. ....>...... .....>... />i ..> >>.i>> o DAKOTA ST PUBLIC UTILITY N 30 FEET OF E 40 FEET OF 11 & E 40 FEET 12-4 4667 DAKOTA ST DAKOTA PROFESSIONAL E 45 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.I. (uSA) INC. 4772 DAKOTA ST (NORTH 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 ERL Y 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 4810 DAKOTA ST ROD DEHMLOW AUTO SALES EX W 55 FEET OF 4,5 & 6-10 ..... ... / ..... >.d. ...... .... 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE PRIOR LAKE CITY HALL W 100 FEET OF 1,2 & 3 ALL 4 TO 12-5 16268 EAGLE CREEK AVE CARLSON WAGON LIT TRAVEL ... .. ...... .. ... ..... .. 16193 ERIE AVE SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING PIO LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 4, ORIGINAL PLAT ..... ........ ...... .. ..... ... ........ ................... .c.... .. ... .... c. 16220 HASTINGS COUNTRY FEED STORE ..... . ....... .. .. ... ....... .. .. 16290 HWY 13 S VIKING LIQUOR PIO 2-1 L.W'STERL Y OF 5.8 FEET 30 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS . LOCATION . LANGHORST 16300 HWY 13 S 1 & E 5.8 OF 2-1 LANGHORST 1ST ..... .. . ..... .... .... 16000 MAIN AVE SINGLE FAMILY 35 11522 13.33 S 13.33 A OF 16095 MAIN AVE JIM GIBBISH CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A A) DAN'S AUTO BODY B) STAR TRIBUNE 16111 MAIN AVE KUSTOM KOLOR I-CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A PEARSONS AUTO BODY 16113 MAIN AVE PEARSONS AUTO BODY 2-CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A GARY GIBBISH 16115 MAIN AVE PRIOR LAKE MOTORS 3-CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A 16117 MAIN AVE GARY GIBBISH 4-CONDO 1014 MAIN ST PLAZA A PRO FINISHERS AUTO BODY 16125 MAIN AVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 10-11, BLOCK 10, ORIGINAL PLAT 16151 MAIN AVE NELSON WOODCRAFT N'ERLY 2 FEET OF 8 ALL OF 9-10 VIERECK FIREPLACE SALES 16154 MAIN AVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS 3 & 4-9 16161 MAIN AVE J & B FURNITURE APT UNIT S'ERLY 48 FEET OF 8-10 16173 MAIN AVE 4 PLEX W 100 FEET OF 7-10 16174 MAIN AVE LEGAL SERVICES 25 FEET OF E 75 FEET OF 1-4 -'- S 13 FEET OF N 38 FEET OF E 75 FEET OF 1-4 16176 MAIN AVE CONOCO STATION E 67 FEET OF 5 & 6-9 16186 MAIN AVE SPEIKER BLDG LOT 1 EX N 25 FEET OF E 75 FEET A) SPEIKER PL AGENCY ALL EX S 13 FEET OF N 38 FEET OF B) SPEIKER TAX SERVICE E 75 FEET OF 1 C) ANDERSON F AMIL Y E 38 FEET OF S 15 FEET OF 3 & N 10 HOMES FEET OF E 38 FEET OF 4-4 D) ALLIED INSURANCE 16189 MAIN AVE CAR OUEST 12-3 16197 MAIN AVE LIFE EXTENSION, WEIGHT N 1/2 OF 11-3 LOSS & TRAINING CENTER 16203 MAIN AVE HAIRMA TE/TAN MATE S 1/2 OF 11-3 16211 MAIN AVE PUBLIC PARKING LOT S 1/2 OF 7-3 16211 MAIN AVE O'MALLEYS PARKING LOT 8-3 EX. N 1 FOOT 16211 MAIN AVE O'MALLEYS ON MAIN 9 & N 1 FOOT OF 8-3 16214 MAIN AVE MONNENS SUPPLY 4-4 LOT 3 EX E 38 FEET OF S 15 FEET 16220 MAIN AVE THE FRANKLIN COMPANIES (PRIOR LAKE PROF. BLDG.) 16224 MAIN AVE WILLOW GREEN NATURAL CRAFTS (PRIOR LAKE PROF. BLDG.) 16228 MAIN AVE LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD S 40 FEET OF LOT 4 & N 1/2 OF 5-4 (PRIOR LAKE PROF. BLDG) 16244 MAIN AVE LIBRARY 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 31 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 ..... ...... ADDRESS ,....... .. NAl"\1E OFBUSINESS LOCATION............... 16244 MAIN AVE MINNEGASCO 7-420 FEET X 20 FEET IN 16281 MAIN AVE CARLSON HARDWARE & N'ERL Y 1/2 OF 2 S'ERL Y 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 & PI0 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 S CATES ..<<../< .......... ..... ... ..>> .... .--.. ......./>> :u.. .......... ...............<<.... i.,..... 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 32 1:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc JuneS, 1998 APPENDIX B 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 Financine (TIF): TIP is probably the most common form of assistance offered by communities. In general, TIP 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. 33 1: \econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5,1998 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 Aopropriation: 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. Phasin~ 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. 34 l:\econdev\eda\steercom\taskrpt.doc June 5, 1998 -if DOWNTOWN STEERING COl'vllvITTTEE JUNE 10, 1998 SPENDING ALTERNATIVES Currently, there is $437,000 which could be generated to pay for project improvements without assessing property owners. Because of the lack of immediately available funds to complete all of the proposed improvements, staff has developed some combinations of project elements which are within or near the amount of money available. The following options include full reconstruction of Main Avenue, which essentially consists of removing the entire roadway now in place and replacing it. Angle parking Angle parking Street Trees Total $240,000 $175,000 $23,200 $438,200 Cosmetic Streets Lights(all) Benches Trees Crosswalks Trash containers Tree guards Banners Total $175,000 $133,500 $5,160 $23,200 $55,000 $3,468 $5,800 $4,640 $405,768 Infrastructure 1 Street Sidewalks Lights( decorative only) Total $175,000 $145,500 $116,000 $436,500 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 ..\N EQUAL OPPORTT;NITY EMPLOYER -.. " ."~"" Infrastructure 2 Streets Lights (all) Sidewalks Total $175,000 $133,500 $145,500 $454,000 Staff also investigated an alternative which does not entail reconstruction of the street but assumed the street work would consist of milling and overlaying the existing street. The cost of this alternative is $101,000 as opposed to $175,000 for reconstruction. The following combinations represent estimates based on the miill and overlay work. Infrastructure A Streets Sidewalks Lights (all) Crosswalks Total $101,000 $145,500 $133,500 $55,000 $435,000 InfrastructureB Street Angle parking (18 islands) Sidewalks Total $101,000 $180,000 $145,000 $426,500 Cosmetic Streets Lights (18 decorative) Trees, benches,trash, barmers,tree guards Angle Parking (18 islands) Crosswalks Total $101,000 $72,000 $42,268 $180,000 $55,000 $450,268 There are other combinations possible, of course, but this is intended to show some of the options which could be pursued without an assessment being imposed on Downtown property owners.