HomeMy WebLinkAbout6A - May 21 EDA Forum Response
AGENDA#:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
BACKGROUND:
Attachment
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
;~ BOYLES, CITY MANAGER ~~
RESPONSE FROM MAY 21, 1997 EDA FORUM
ATTENDEES REGARDING NOTES AND
CONCLUSIONS.
JULY 21, 1997
Attached are the memorandums which were distributed
during the May 21 Economic Development Authority
Forum. Attendees were invited to submit their comments
regarding these notes, through the mail no later than
Friday, July 18 or in person at the July 21 EDA Meeting.
The EDA should "complete the record" regarding the EDA
forum so that they may move forward in deciding which
area or areas will receive assistance for
development/redevelopment, if any.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
o
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Prior Lake Economic Development Authority Forum Attendees
Frank Boyles, City Manager
May 21 Forum Notes
July 2, 1997
Attached as promised are notes from the Economic Development Authority Forum
conducted on May 21, 1997. Please review the notes for completeness and accuracy.
The Economic Development Authority desires to bring closure to the Forum and is
therefore requesting your recommendations for modifications to the notes by 5:30
p.m. Monday, July 21, 1997 at Fire Station 1.
You may submit your revisions in person at the meeting or in writing by 4:30 p.m.
Monday, July 21, 1997 to Frank Boyles, fax # 447-4245.
The forum and the record from it will be used by the Economic Development
Authority as data for planning their next step in supporting community
development and redevelopment.
On behalf of the Economic Development Authority thank you for attending the
forum and sharing your ideas.
I:\EDA.EDA REPTS\F\ol71 I.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORl1JNI1Y E.\.1PLOYER
~
DVANCE
-
-
FROM:
Roger Guenette
D &~&a~&m
~vN ;997 UJ
TO:
Prior Lake EDA & Workshop Participants
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
(i.e. 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 "free 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
Business Finance and _ ..'.'0 ~,,~,.
Economic Development
Specialists
p :) 3cx :::::::09
:'v'lCiS. \/'~j :5,;,132 -:J6Co
Phcre: (6' 2) 755-5303
~ax: .:' 2" ~55-'7~J.1
P,C' 2ox302~
Merker:: \lr\; :oCC2,:0:"'
Pr.cne :507' .387,'" 17
=ex.50-' .38-")1~:
~
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 store
- Appliance store
- Movie theater
- RestaurantIBar
- BarberIBeauty 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
2
~
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
3
6
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.
4