HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Recommendation to City Council to Complete Business Park Plans and Specifications CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUbmlA.RY FOR ACTION
PORT AUTHORITY COMMISSION MEETING DATEo AUGUST 3, 1993
AGENDA ITEM: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION:
TO COMPLETE BUSINESS PARK PLANS AND SPECS CONSULTANT/STAFF REPORTS
PREPARED BY: JOHN MILLER, AGENDA NO.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
ATTACHI�IENTS: NONE AP OVE BY
On August 17 I will be presenting to the city council a project plan and
project budget for the Rosemount Business Park. If the council gives the
port authority authorization to initiate the project it will be necessary
to 1) complete the purchase and 2) improve the land so that development may
start.
With regard to the improvements, the port authority has already completed a
concept plan and a feasibility study. The next step is to ask the engineer
to complete plans and specifications. This is a council initiative.
At this point the port authority, to continue the development of the
business park, should recommend to the city council that plans and
specifications for improvements be completed, contingent of course on
council approval of the business park as a project.
RECONIl�IEND$D ACTION: Motion to recommend to the city council completion
of plans and specifications for improvements to the Rosemount Business
Park.
PORT AUTHORITY ACTION:
, �` � _ .
GITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR.Y FOR ACTION
CITY C4UNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3 , 1993
AGENDA ITEM: CARLSON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AGEND�1 SECTION:
NEW BUSINESS
PREPARED BY: JOHN MILLER, AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR ��� � �y
v
ATTAC�iED7TS: PROJECT PLAN/BUDGET ROSEMOIJNT APP VED BY:
VILLAGE SQUAR.E, MEMO FROM JOHN MILLER, OTHER
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Please see attached memarandum.
�• � �pr�vt�i�
A> � c��u,c�,� � �c � � �� `�r o►`� ���► —
��2 , p� �
�. Cs�u,��►�. w�� r� I�+�, ��.,-
� �
�,. 1,t9 k.�(,� �^o�� Ja
p . s,��� �
�. ��� s�.e-
�. t�1lc..� �.��� �or,�,� .. i�t��� ��ur.t�. cr� 6�5 cc.w-
� • �qG�c1i�o �� �
j� , z�v �o�s C. �� �� ��- m,�- c� www� �a,U.�,�
�v ���.�,G� ,
_ � . �+�,.j' �c�,w�..� a,� 1�.p�i�l6.�,�� .-c�.,. �e�.
. �G� �� �� ` ��.:�e.�
4 � � � �� �
�, GQ�� t�t,GU�.t3t,Qrw�� #�SO�t� ' ' �q, ���
RECOMMENDED ACTIONz Motion to approve port authori-�y an al
participation in the Rosemount Village Square project, not to exceed
$250, Ofl0 in present value on a city tax abatement, pay-as-you-go basis.
The payments shall not extend beyond ten years.
COIINCIL ACTION:
, �
., ,
MEMo
TO: Mayor McMenomy
Councilmembers Klassen, Staats, Willcox, Wippermann
FROM: John Miller, Economic Development Coordinator
DATE: July 30, 1993
RE: Carlson DeveZopment Propasal
The Rosemount Port Authority is required by law to gain city council appraval of any
project in which it wishes to participate.
Recently the port authority reviewed the Rasemount Village Square project as
proposed by Carlson Properties of Rosemount. This developYnent would occur on
approximately 7.2 acres of land located on the south side of County Road 42. A
preiiminary site plan showing locations in greater detail is found in the attached
document titled "Draft Froposal Project Plan and Project Budget Rasemount Village
Square.°
Highlights of the proposal, however, are as follows:
� 52,000 square feet of building area
• Grocery store anchor of 25,000 square feet
• Total cost of $3,610,000
• Estimated property tax payments of$200,000 to $227,OOQ
• Projected creation of 62 full-time and 143 part-time jobs
The proposal is befare the city council because the Carlsons are requesting financial
assista.nce from Rosemount to complete the project.
At its July 20 meeting the pc�rt authority endorsed the payrnent of the �resent value Qf
$25___ 0 OOQ to the Carlsons, slightly less than seven percent of the projeet's co�t.�is
payment would be made on a pay-as-you-go basis from revenue the city would receive
fram property ta�ces paid by the Carlsons.
� � � �
Page 2
With the pay-as-you-go, the city sells no bonds and hence incurs no financial risk.
Similarly, if the Carlsans do not build the project or if they build only a scaled down
version, the city has no obligation to pay the Carlsons.
How would the payment work? If the Carlsons pay $20�,000 yearly in property taxes
and if the city's share of that is $50,000, the council would enter into an agreement
with the port authority to transfer $50,000 annually to the port authority. In turn the
port authority would have a developm�nt agreement with Carlson Properties to pay
them $50,000 annually. This would continue for a specified period of time as agreed
to in a development agreement.
The city's bond counsel, Briggs and Morgan, has reviewed this finance tool and has
found it is legal.
Carlson:Properties is presently working with the city's engineering and planning
peopie on site pian review and infrastructure items. These issues are distinct from this
financing proposal. Upon city council approval of the port authority's request for
"Project Plan and Project Budget Approval," the port authority would enter into a
development agreement with Carlson Properties. The other details would be resolved
just as the planning cammission will resolve site issues.
dw
• , ' ,
CITY UF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTrVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
PORT AUTHORITY COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 20, 7.993
AGENDA ITEM: PROPOSAL FROM CARLSON PROPERTIES AGENDA SECTION:
TO DEVELOP A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER OLD BUSINESS
PREPARED BY: JOHN MILLER, AGENDA N�.
ECONOMTC DEV�LOAMENT COORDINATOR 4 . A.
ATTACHI+SENTS: DR.AFT PR(3POSAL SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY:
CARLSON PROPERTIES; CORRESPONDENCE FROM TOM
HEIBERG DATED JULY 1, 19 9 3, MEMO FROM JOHN ���,,t(� _
MILLER, SPRINGSTED INC, PROJECTIONS ���N"`�' +�J«l\�
Please see the attached proposal from Carlson Properties of Rosemount, my
review, and other supporting documents .
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve participation in the development
of the Carlson Neighborhood Commercial Center as outlined in Rosemount
Village Square groposal submitted by Garlson Properties of Rosernount
contingent upon city cauncil approval of a "Project Plan° and "Project
Budget. °
PORT AUTHORITY ACTION:
t • r � . . . . � . � � . .
MEMO
T4: Chair Dunn
Commissioners Anderson, Carroll, Edwards, McMenomy, Sinnwell,
Wippermann
FR�M: John Miller, Economic Development Coordinator
DATE; July 16, 1993
1�: Carlson Center Proposal
I have received the proposal to construct a neighbarhood commercial center submitted
by Carlson Properties of Rosemount. The highlights are as follows:
• Carlson proposes to build approximately 52,000 square feet of retail
space anchored by a 25,Q00 square foot groeery store. A second phase
would increase the grocery store to 40,000 square feet.
• The second anchor has not yet been identified, it may be a drug store.
• The county assessor has reviewed the project and has given an estimated
market value of$4,oao,000. Annual property taxes are estimated at
$227,246 with the city's share bein� $52,109.
• Carison's praject is estimated to create 62 full-time jobs and 143 part-
time jobs.
• Financial assistance from the port authority in the amount of{present
value) $250,000 is requested in the pay-as-you-go farmat.
• Carlson has submitted financial data showing the actual cost of�212,29$
square feet of tand to be $645,645 or $3.08 per square foot.
• Carlson has provided a response to my letter of June 23 regarding:
1. Gateway's eommitment to the project.
2. Patential tenants.
3. Calculation of land values.
4. Market analysis for the gracery store.
' ' � 1
These are all issues raised by commission members.
• The Carlsons have met with Dakota County representatives regarding the
issue of road access. It has been agreed that access from County Road
42 will be permitted.
• City planning and engineering staff have met with the Carlsons regarding
site plan issues. An application for site plan review has been received by
the ciry. At this time it appears all site plan issues can be resolved.
• The city's financial assistance to the project has been reviewed by
Springsted, Inc. and by bond counsel Briggs and Morgan. No
unresolved legal issues were identified.
• Construction would start in 1993 with initial occupancy in March of
1994.
Other issues regarding the Carlson propasal:
• Competition with the existing grocery store has been used as an
argument against the project. I would reject this argument for two
reasons:
1. Presently most dollars spent for groceries go outside the city,
ergo, local shoppers must want other shapping opportunities. �
2. To the best of my knowledge, the present owner of the e�cisting
grocery store knew of the Carlson-Gateway Foods proposal when
he purchased the store, as did the whoiesaler. The risk of
competition was understood and accepted.
• Carlsons center will hurt the city's traditional downtown. I would reject
this argument based on these reasons:
1. The Downtown Scoping Committee has determined that the C.R.
42 commercial area and the traditional downtown are dependent
upon one another. In this regard the only area where new large
scale projects are possible is C.R. 42 as it's the only place where
enough vacant land is available to support them.
2
. '� • `
Shoppers at C.R, 42 are more likely to support other downtown
businesses than are shoppers doing business in Apple Valley, i.e.
traffic in one area helps the other. Dan't we all expect the theater
to help downtown Rosemount?
2. Can anyone name a suceessful commercial area or city with one
grocery store, one used car lot, one bookstore, one clothing store,
one clothing store, one drug store, one gas station.
• Financial assistance is not really needed by the Carlsons' project. Here's
the case against that argument.
l. The land has all utilities in and has good visibility from County
Road 42 with an ADT of 13,000 vehicles. If a self-supporting
project were possible somebody would have built it. They
haven't.
2. There is no correlation between a property owner who is
personally financially secure and a economically feasible project.
Did Apple Valley provide assistance to wealthy people to locate
businesses in that city? Did Bloomington help the Mall of
America owners? Minneapolis?
• The Carlsons will not pay back any assistance.
l. Property taxes generated from the project will pay ali the public
assistance costs. At about the same time, about $170,d00 in
property taxes will annually be paid to other taxing jurisdictions,
Final Analysis:
With a relatively modest investment of appro�ci,mately $254,004 Rosemount gets a big
return. Tt gets over 200 full and part-time jobs, $4,000,040 in tax base, and evidence
that the city's commercial and retail base is at take-off. City support should be given.
aW
3
, , Oi./15/93 15:56 F� 612 223 3002 SPRIKGSTEA INC, f�002:Q02
�. �
pREUMiNARY ANALY�tS (NaT FOR GENERAL DISTRI�uTir3n ►
City o# Rosemaunt, Minnesata '
Cartson Prop�tties Propasat
Rosemaut�t Vitla e S uare
Projected Tax Ir�crement Repa�t -- Lac�l Effart �nly!
�---- Tota! ----� �------- t:ity ----(
Annual incr�ased �Increasad Tax Tax
Period Est. Market Tax Capacity Annual Gapacity Annua�l
Ending Vatue (1) � Capacity Ftt�te Taxes Rate 7axes
�.�
12/31/93 0 d 130.000°k+ 0 29.810% Q
12131 f�4 0 0 130.000°� 0 29.810°�6 0
1 12/31/95 3,8a0,100 1�A�,805 130,000°� 227,246 29.810°� 52,y 09
2 12/31/96 3,840,1[10 174,805 130.00(y%o 227,246 29.810% 52,109
3 12/31/97 3,SOa,100 �7�,805 13o,oa0% 227,246 29.810°!0 52,109
4 12/31 j98 3,$OQ�100 174,805 130,000°l0 227,246 29.$1�% 52,y 49
5 12/31/99 3,800,100 174,805 130.000°,� 227,2A�6 29.810°� 52,109
6 12.�31I2D00 3,800,10� 174,805 13Q,OQ0°�G 227,246 29.81Q% 52,109
7 12/3 i/2041 3,$00,100 174,$06 130.000% 227,246 29.81 Q% 52,149
8 i 2/31 J20fl2 3,800,100 174,805 130.040% 227,2�6 29.810%0 52,1 Q9
T ��,a»,sss ._ ���s,s7� ��} --
(1} Assumes project is 1 t?0°� completed in 1993 for full ass�ssment on 1/2/54, anc�
taxes payable in 1995. Assumes$4,000,000 EMV of pro}�ct upon campfetion
less$199,900 current EIUfV of(and.
{2) EMV times commercial�ndustrial classifrcation rate of 4.60%.
(3) Maximum supportable debt+@ 9.Q% 288.414
. : Less: 18 months of capitaNzed interest 25,957
Avail�le for project costs&other expenses �262,457
Prepared by: Springsted tncorp�rated ( 15—Ju1�93)
� ,
C.��!�e�ON l�l��I��I�.'���� o�Ra��r�avr�r
Box 69 • I�osemount, Minnesot� 55068 � 612 • 4�3 • 22��
NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTI4N
July 1, 1993
Mr. John Mi11er
Economic Development Coordinator
City of Rosemount
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, MN 55068-0510
RE: Rosemount Viilage Square
Response ta your letter of June 23. 1993
Dear John:
In response to your ietter of June 23. 1993, I submit on behalf of Carlson
Properties of Rosemount, the praject sponsor and developer. the following;
1. Attached copy of internal memo from Gateway Foods Division President.
Rudy Comchoc. to Jerry Nelson, President, Minneapolis Division of
Gateway Foods.
2. Letters of intent from potential tenants in addition to Gateway Foods.
a. Great Clips -- Mr. David Rubenzer. 1.200 sq. ft.
b. Mr. Movies, Store ��82 -- Ms. Gai1 Sendt. 3.500 sq. ft.
c. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. -- Mr. Joe Rybowicz, 1.200 sq. ft.
3. Attached calcuTation sheet by Cliff Carlson.
4. Market Analysis Information is the property of �ateway foods of
Minneapalis and the proposed operators. Market Analysis 'Informatian
is their opportunity information and as a policy it is confidentia]
information to Gateway.
Gateway and the operators are prepared to meet privately or in a closed
session with the Port Authority to discuss operating performas pr
projections which were developed from the Market Survey material .
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the Port Authority's questions.
The information contained herein about specific prospects and costs is to be
kept confidential by members of the Port Authority.
Since 1y yours.
`� . �j 1 � �� : . � . . . . . . . .
�� �� �
Thomas W. Heiberg
Representatiue
Carlson Properties of Rosemount
TWH/jjk
Enclosures
� � �
_.�.,_ - - ---- -
-��- � - - - � - •_—.--
��
......_.�� ,� �.�
�...�., ,�._..� '�'
„�,..., ..�......_.., ��r.....` �._... ......_
..� ���� ......
r�
�
��
���
TO: Je�ry Nelson
FR4M; Rudy Camchoc
DATE: �'une 22, I.993 'v'IA FACSIMIL�
SUBJ: Management Cammittee Request P�GkaCte
RosemOLiilt Jubilc?e
�Te�'z'y:
The Managem�nt Committe� Request Paokage for the Rasemaunt
�ubilee, has been approved as submitted.
Please contact Terrg Helz to have the proper paperwo�k
drawn up, ir� ar�Ier �.o proceed with this project.
Sincerely,
R�d �mchoc
RC:ps
.
! • r
July 1 , 1993
Cazlson Properties of Ros�aunt
Box 69
Rosemount, N�T 55068
Dear Cliff:
Please accept this letter of i.antent as our i.ntention to negotiate
a lease with you for approximatel.y 3500 square feet of sp�ace in
your new shopping center. We w�uld like to be close to the new
grocery store, if possi.ble.
Sincerely, .
-� �
�� ,0 ,
� � �
Mr. Nbbies, Store #82
Gayle Y. B�ndt
David A. Rubenzer
lune 28, 1993
Mr. Cliff Carlsan
Carlson Tractar-Equipment Campany
P.O. Box 69
Rosemount,MN 5506$
TaP.ar Cli£f: .
, Adrienne Olson,my partner in Great Clips in Burnsville has indicated that she is interested
in leasing space for a Great Clips shop at your proposed strip center in Rosemount. We
' typically use 1200 feet with a minimum of 20 feet fronta.ge, a standazd vanilla shell with
bathroorns to code, stub plumbing for sinks, hot water heater,and floor drain(s),eleetrical
' and lighting.
Would you please provide us with a proposed site plan and available spaces and lease
terms.
We're excitecl to tallc with you about this opportunity. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
' Best e ards,
David Ruben r
cc: Adrienne Olson
DAR/wmg
IJII.ti'C(;,nr.e.�.,• � 1..,...�..� li.-:,,..1 .�t�� ♦1:.,,,E.�.,�.. S:7-r� 1r_.,..,, �rv rirv i�.... rn i�n . n .�.�. ,.,,.�... .� ..
_. _ . __ .. . . _ .._. ._..._ ._...�. . ..... . . _.._ . .: ._..■
F r
•
�[�6tle i(;��e,s�xse
d} Landlord to provide two (2) inch gas
line {per LCE plans and
specifications) .
e) Landlord to provide al1 underground
plumbing per LCE plans and
specifications) .
f) Landlord to provide (4) €our inehes
of smooth concrete floor, with vinyl
composition fiile floar covering (per
LCE plans and specifications) .
g) Landlord to provide handicapped
restroom per all local and state
codes. Restrooms to include all
necessary fixtures such as handicap
rails, sink, mirrors, soap and paper
dispensers, ceiling light, exhaust
fan and water closet. Wal].s tinished
and painted to meet code
requirements. Floors finished with
vinyl composition tile (per LCE plans
and specifications) . Pre-finished
hollow care wood door with privacy
lockset and self closure.
h) Landlord ta provide dropped ceiling
grid at height of 9.0 feet per LCE
specifications, with 2'x4 ' lay-in
acousticai ceiling grid system. Said
tiles shall be smooth and washable to
meet Health Department requirements.
Landlord shall further supply 2x2
acoustical ceiling tiles in customer
lobby (per LCE plans and
speci.ficatians) . Also, landlord shall
supply 2 'x 4 ' recessed lay-in
fluorescent light fixtures (ger LCE
plans and specifications} ,
i) Landlord to provide drywall extending
to the bottom of the roof structure,
drywall surface to be taped and
sanded, and painted with one coat of
walls.
, � . �. � . . � . � � .
. . . . � � � � .� �
• . a . � . � � . . � � . .
JC�art�l�e I(��ue �,S�l�rs
j ) Landlord to allow tenant signage in
conjunction with signage provided to
other tenants, on front and side of
building per LCE plans and
specifications. Also, we ask
permission to erect our own, or be
allowed space on the pylon sign in
front af the shopping eenter.
k) Landlord to provide four {4) faot wide
rear door for de3.iveries.
1) Landlord shall complete automatic fire
sprinkler system, if required, above
and below ceiling to meet alI local
cade requirements and Little Caesar' s
plans and speeifications.
m) Landlord to provide a seventy-five
(75) gallon commerc,ial hot water
heater or 80,000 BTU equivalent (per
LCE plans and specifications) .
n) LandZord to give tenant the e�clus3ve
right to sell pizza within the
shopping center and all other
contiguous properties. ..__.._._ "i�'
,
7) Rental schedule - Five Year Leasa
- �i2oa sg.ft. �
�;
i . slo.00�ft. �... ,
2. $10.00/ft.
3. $10.00/ft,
4. $10.00/f�.
5. $10.00/ft.
Option 6_ $11 .5OJft.
7 . $11 .50/ft.
8. $11 .5Q/ft.
9. $11 .50/ft.
10. $11 .5Q/ft.
� � �
�
I�ittle �aes��r5�
oPtion �
11 . $13.80/ft.
12. $13.80/ft.
13 . $13 .80/ft.
14. $13 .80/ft.
15. $13.80/ft.
16. $16.56/ft.
17. $16.56/ft, �
18. $16.56/ft.
19. $16.56Jft.
20. $16.56/ft.
This proposal is subject to all necessary governmental
approvals to agerate a Little Caesar restaurant at this l;ocation in
addition to the final approval of Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.
After your review, please contact me so that we may fina3ize
p=eparation of the lease. I appreciate your consideration of our
proposal.
i cere y,
G ��
4 J e Ryb i c z
R al Estate Man g r
JR/dC
Littie Caesar Enterprises,Inc
5999 New Wilke Rc�ad
Suit� 1(i4
RcfllinK Meadci���s.(tiinc►is t,(lOUK
! i
Land Cost Summary*
8.6 Acres
f4r
Rosemount Village Square
Original cost of (4.87 acres) 212.298 sq. ft. purchased from Jim fvenson on
March 14, 1983 was 5275,OOQ.00 on a five year Contract for Deed at 10�
interest.
Interest paid on 5 year C.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 94.524
Interest cost at 10X on down payment of E35.000 for 5 years . . . . 17.500
Int. cost at 10� on E10,Q00 principal payment for 4 years . . . . . . 4,000
Int. cost at 10� on E10.000 principal payment for 3 years . . . . . . 3,OOU
Int. cost at 10% on 510,000 principal payment for 2 years . . . . . . 2,OOQ
Int. cost at 10� on �10,000 principal payment for 1 year . . . . . . . 1 .000
Interest cost to March 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 122,024
Purchase price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 275.000
Real fstate Taxes paid by us through 1988 on same . . . . . . . .: . . . . . 17.931
Cost of property as of March 1988. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414.955
Int. cost for 5 years at 10� 1988-1993 not compounded . . . . . . . . . . �.07.4'17
622.432
Taxes paid on same 1989 through 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2I3
Cost in 1993 of 212,298 sq. ft. = E3.08lsq. ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b654,645
Total shopping center site is 375.236 sq. ft. x 53.08 � t1 .155.726.80.
*1'he land was acquired at different times and from different Sellers.
Development costs were incurred at different times. To simplify calculations
the cost of the 4.87 acres was projected over the 8.b acre site.
Prepared by C1iff Carlson
June 30, 1993
. ! ` . . . . . . .
D raft Pro osa l
p
Pra 'ecf Plan Bud et
1 �
Rosemount Vitla e S uare
� a
Rosemount, Minnesota
�.
Submi#ted to
Port Authority City of Rosemount
Dated Juiy 15, 1993
for July 20, 1993
Port Authorifiy Meeting
e � �
iabTe of Contents .
Rosemount Village Square
8.6 Acre Cornmercial Development
Rosemount. Minnesota
by
Carlson Praperties of Rasemount
A. Project Background
B. Current Project Recap
C. Project Development Team Assembled
1. Carlson Properties of Rosemount - Developer, Sponsor & Owner
P.O. Box 69
Rosemount, MN 55068 Phone: t612) 423-2222
Partners Cliff Carlson, Ron Garlson and Rich Carlson
2. Land'Sake - Project Coordinator, Real Estate Bro}cer, Leasing Agent
P.O. Box 24127
Apple Valley, MN 55124 Phone: (612) 431-7500
Company Representative: Tom Heiberg
3. Architect: Runyan-Vogel Group
Suite 6200
1300 Godward St.
Minneapolis , MN 55413
Mr. Gary Vogel , Company Representative
Mr. Jofin Kohler. Company Representative
(612? 379-4100
(612) 379-4847 FAX
4. Engineer: Rehdor & Associates . Inc.
Suite 24p
3440 Federal Orive
Eagan. MN 55122
(612) 452-5051
(612) a52-9797 fax
5, Surveyar: Sigma Surveying Services
3908 Sibley Memorial Highway
Eagan, MN 55122
_ Mr. Wayne D. Cordes, Company RepresentativQ
(512) 452-3077
6. Contractor: ECI Building Contractors
1771 Yankee Qoodle Road
Eagan, MN 55121
Mr, Mike Gresser, Chairman of the Board
Mr. Larry Grell , President and Company Representative
(612) 452-0555
(612) 452-0057 FAX
.
,. .�.
�ra��:.aN�,y : . � � _ _ ._.___
, ,x. _ , ..
...... . ,
31i�'�—�= �_•., •-;:litialcailr.3"etj67'' �'••"" daE+r"3i1F �''� -•4,...w..: .••-,•,m.�_�� t:rGrla�Yyi�'�ii�R:tF'�,.�• •.vSrF S:� ���r.�iw.�r
r t
D. Legal Description and 8oundary Survey ,
1. Legal Description
2. Boundary Survey
. . � � . � � . . � . f
E. Proposed Development i
, .
1. Conceptual Site P1an
2. Conceptual Building Elevations
F. Statement of Need And/Or Assistance
G. Project impact �
1. Job Creation �
2. Estimate of Real Estate Taxes Generated
3. Psychic Benefits to the Community
H< Impact on Public Infrastructure
�.�
1. Sanitary Sewer
2. Storm Sewer
3. �tater
4. Roads. Nighways and Traffic - Ex
Roadway Rccess - Letter from Dakota County Plat Commission
I . Development Time Table
J. Cost Estimate of Project
1 . Shopping Center
2. Pad Sites for Freestanding Retaii Structure
K. Nature and Amount of Project Assistance Requested
1 . Amount
2. Expenditure Categories
L. Preliminary Cost Recap and Financial Information
M. Fifteen Year Projected Cash Flow
1. Assumptions Summary
2. Cash Flow Without Assistance
3. Cash Flow With Assistance
N. Assistance Funding Mechanism and Repayment Source Plan
0. Summary
A. Project Background �
The 8.6 acre site is a part of the South Rose Park Addition Replat
and its second addition. The site has been cammercially zoned for
ten years or more. Rasemount's comprehensive guide plan
designates the area as a major commercial area within the city.
Dver the years several proposals for a retail center on the site
have been proposed and have nat been completed for numerous
reasons. such as high constructian eosts relative to market rents,
lack of adequate population, high interest rates, and the
siphoning of retail sales demand by large stares in adjacent
communities tp the north and west.
B. Current Project Recap
� The current concept is for a 67.000 square foot, two phase, project plus
two areas designated for freestanding retail buildings out in front of
the shopping center near County Road 42. �
The initial phase will consist of a 25.000 square foot`"grocery stare
anchor tenant, a 10,000 square foot secondary anchor tenant and
approximateiy 17,000 square feet for small shops to house smaller retail
businesses and personal service businesses.
The second phase will accommodate a 15.000 square foot expansion of the
grocery store as the market demands.
r . .
C. Project Development Team Assembled
1. Carlson Properties of Rosemount
The Carlson Group has been developing land and buildings in the
Rosemount area far many years. Through their efforts twenty or
more strong businesses have developed in South Rose Park.
including the doctors and professional building tenants. Rosemount
Gardens, a contractor service building, Holiday Station Store and
the Carlson Chippendale Retail Center. These facilities are a
strong part of Rosemount's commerciai identity.
2. Land'Sake
Land'Sake and its owner Tom Heiberg have been active in the
commercial land and building business as a broker and develaper in
northern Dakota County and the Twin Cities metrapolitan area since
the early 1970s. Land'Sake has developed or �been the development
manager for single famiiy land, cammercial , retail�, office land as
well as buildings and industrial buildings. motels, and
restaurants.
,
Land'Sake has managed and leased shapping centers, offices and
office service warehouses in the last ten years.
3. Architectc Runyan-Vogel Group, Architects and Planners
The RunyanlVogel Group is an architectural , planning and interior
design firm estabiished in 1973 as David Todd Runyan & Associates
and was subsequently changed to The Runyan/Vogel Group. Inc. in
1987. The firm has a diverse practice which encourages innovation
and creativity while dealing with a wide variety of building
types. These include office, office/retail , institutionai
including health care, retail , governmental , light industrial /
- manufacturing/warehousing, and multi -family housing. Since the
� firm's inception. it has been involved in the pianning and design
of over six million square feet of canstructed space. These
projeets include new as well as remodeled and/or renovated space.
4. Engineer: Pending
5. Surveyor: Sigma Surveying Services
6. ECI Building Contractors
ECI is an Eagan, Minnesota , contractor that has built a strong
reputation as a reliabie builder with high integrity that delivers
a quality product and dependable service to their client and the
community.
�
D. Legal Description and Boundary Survey
1, Lega1 Descriptian
Proposed Property Division Description
-- p!o Block l, SOUTH ROSE PARK ADOITION REPLAT--
-Parcel C-
Lot l, Block 1, SOUTH ROSE PARK ADDITION REPLAT, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Dakota Caunty, Minnesota. Except the West
225.00 feet thereof, as measured at rigfi t angles to and parallel
with the west line of said Lot 1.
Tagether with a 30 foot wide non-exclusive driveway easement being
15.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline:
Beginning at a point on the west Tine of said Lot 1, distant
208.33 feet Southerly of the northwest corner of said tot 1:
thence Easterly at right angles to said west 1ine, a
distance of 225.Q0 feet and there terminating.
and *-
Lot 3. 61ock 1, SOUTH ROSE PARK 2ND ADDITION, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Dakota County. Minnesota,
and
(Common driveway)
The North 60.00 feet of Lot 4, Block I , SOUTH ROSE PARK 2ND
ADDITION, as measured at right angle to and parallel with the
north line of said Lot 4.
-Parcel C- Land Area = 375.236 Sq. Ft.
(8.612 acres)
D. Legal Description and Boundary Survey
2. Boundary Survey
" COUNTY STATE_ , AtD HtGiHWAY NO, 42
: . � . � � NC7'�33YE . � � . . . . . .. . .
.. � �33� . . � . . . � � .
. •Nr)3?�JE ls�[Ia�. -��YdB°..�.�S�P� .t¢a.50� .
. �JrlDO�,�. ,'' dsNW'00' � � � � r . . . _. _ � _ _ ..
. � � �. � . . . . ' . . � . .
. . �x� . . . . ' . i . `- .. ; . .
. o� G SO� . . � � .:. 1. op 'ti, �. ' . . .
••� Q(�� . . . . . . . . . .. t . . ' . .
•+1�� �� �{v', a r� v� 1
(j`� � q
. �+; .t+!°4.._� - � ti��' ��.'�'v;a � .� � � � ' N. . `'.. i�,``a . � .
_Y,•_- - -.._.,.� .� � ,,,,• t�� �'C� ,�Pr : o i
. �Y�"OwWfM�+[�Tf�lrR+���- W �y o. � � i . � t+'` � I .
.( . � •� w•��I �/I�?O � � � � •`ti� . � N �(o •. .
n iti' � .�i` � �;,�� � :�� <J. � . . .
:I " O; `�, � �\V `�y � •R
' �0 ; w��. A �1V f� /: t�:. •ttaP 6:t'.£ �2`.1�
,' ��,�`t . .,�'' ��;:• �V �y � 256�? :., �+ e " :--'_"'
� Q�� �, " ``� ��� �.«. � s co�� a,,,..4.�r
� 1 :, *\
��______':. � '` �-- �
�,
:ra.00�,�-,:� . . . �� ''� ��..•-588•�S'ST'�w �70t96 .
1 �. . ; + ::. p ��
, �
. ; ;� £�
--•—. -- � e f �
; 4i�ze.9'�� ' ' � � .. y� . e ,'. A��v��o .
. pi . . I�... Q�i. :
. . �I +'D( . . ' - , � � ' F . .
� js ��
�
� ; �---, r sr • :� ^ `.' . �.� . _
. \ �'�'j�S � � � � .
\ • �
. . � f � � .� �. . a � � . .
�\ '^ `�
I `• . .
� i, ' Ar� ��(S' /
'\ ! !d� L'C56' �
. . . . ��� . sr ` 53 . ' �9.pt�yip . . . '.
/��� ����•'6e�. � ��2_�. . ST ' .
1 �` i
� . . � / v . �_�_ -_ .. ' ��� � �
�4+ � '� —:--
�
/�4'aa // � ` '`' __
-�' "'—
G�� v4' � �
�� ,
�
�
sco�e:t.•a c0-:
' •s• - � 1- e �
r - � - � '
� ..�;.....
' -r- '
t"�.`»'4C1.`��z'?E' 'C-.. ,,.. �,,,,�:.:_-' �..c--.-r-...-�--�. �� .�� '� .�:,.- _ _ 'i '�'""�'"�""'_"'."`�„'. '
-x�j .>_ a�.,::.►z - _�.z ..a.:*.�'r'LY!r:;.s !r-�......;.n:ty�+.. y �ss't��-+^�•:�� �"..��.:.�...'r._ s
fY�"Y- - s�. - -- - - ,,.�.,:,C�''i�� ��_+ — - ��J
j���„ ��� -- ��.rier� 43',9' ���i.r��t1H1[IIft�H1f ",��_:.
��; i `"" �"„E'" $. _ ' `•
'� �F:�� tf'.-.2'.i�:.- /i
�� �a hui � r s li.
;tr ;�� .�...��., �` '. J►_ `�f �,
i� �
+',�� i � .. � �}r i^(� = �_
v•
ti��--� -— -'^t j� y ����� �� ■ =:_ f,.; �iF
,� i r � _ � ��.
"-.��i � 1• =l. ` kr,,
�".
. <' 7 1� <2 1'. �.,,'"r " t33
� ��
�� ►.,., � � � _�
j - � � .
S� �Q � �ri
�` � �
� , -
�= �� � � w�
•� ,
t„a s�
���__������` ^ �. ��
i� �3b G� ��`
� ��.�. �. �`�� - -�r �
��o - i
(�4 � � ~���``
..� i �`!'' ..
* ���� ��.. ' i
Z ,, � ��o '
�
I . _j-; �w �.w.�..�m �.-" ("
[ .�. __._ _...___-_. �rsQe.ita. '��s` j �
t - - - .v.��.�,� C'¢ �i,a1
yC;�..y�.,,,r-�..�;;+'3' �.� `c;
�,y. �-.�. �' �. – — — — - Y– �' - � i
ai. . • ' ' �� c _
����� /,� �� ��r,� !� �.
e
�=.-�,� �'� �`'t���l���� � � o �;�
♦ �, «t
ti,� ,�-�.. _: ,_�1�� � � �
_ .► ;�_. _•. _ � ; ,
.`�•:�:�:�.. �'� ;:�� '�- �,��� � � � ''
L..:� . � �°
�:_,,,,. �, _� ,
. �
� .. , , , , �.
� � _
. � ' ��
Fra4w,�za:' �; �
f '!� � �
4-
"si .�+rsr�o�r+r..
'.�� . `,� �.
�� ` .�
� : � �� � ' � F f `
���^ �1 •�i i�
�� 1 ="''s:".�.��� f"'
•f r•' `'�� � ' ..
�.�"�.....�'.� f:
�
, .
.� � ,
� ! �• 'f �' ••
• ' 1 �' � ' • � � �/ �
'T =
y'. J�`..... .�,�. d 'r..
� y;'.�:��.•, - z_
-.l` ^f r�• . '�tp'y � » `rs�,.
-r � �i- "" �„ .�:� � _ + �
��� � '� �_'- .. '�"ya.,^� -
�. � :
y .._-�---�,- " L :.s: ; ►.,.Ia�Y���o L.. R.���c � - # .
sa�'"' ' .d�'l� _ �as
�-- _" --� :,,.� -= . �____--�------ -___..: ._.----, - __�•:��v"' `�
,j ;�� � - ,- �'��irs��.�.
,- _.. � _ ,.:.- - . � . ,� �.
.�" '� � '" , _ ._. „�,� - _�- -���___ ��:::.;;•::�• � ,,.,�,�3�
I�Iiiif���►": .+ .�._ � _��� �� � - I � -��J���.1�,., ..��/'•
��` � :r� )f4 �� •�L�J��ILJ:_ ��r�
� •��.i'�������'� ;_'�...�. � ��'��' ZJ�� � � .
,r _� �e�" - `•��f��.. _ �,{ o.+---..v,.i..�.
"a �� � ��-'.
,It - - - - - ..
.�
s1�'� ��-'�`„'� — «_
� � _ v...
� _�r ,� _ r , _ _. - _ _. _:,'_°�r►
�. � -•�,t _��'�ss . _ ..,,: �--�' ,�..�
__ - - �__ '=r��.2 (� - r..� ��—�-----""
�t:!'' � - � n�.,y,. �I/ C Il �'r,�3 ,•"�'� TM ..._ _
�_ .
.... . ... . .+,.-«_..
.. � . .i - �46..� ._.... y� ..
� �.. '
, �� --- .�....._ - .. . _ .,.,.,__.
� . ... �. . . «
.-__..•�. _ ,,.�.y► -, «'2--w�+��`...e^�� .^=_ � . . , .
.' '...�..� � -+r'�. , ."_ ♦ ......,. �`y�.;�"'�"r'r';.... i or.�,.�,..:a�.:::-i
//� �y��'1 '��.�raw.r•
• . *„- �{��r r �c� �
�..._� _
�• � • • ' �
F. Statement of Need AndlOr Assistance �
In taday's retail market, community shopping centers like the proposed
Rosemount Village Square are competing in many respects with the
regional shopping areas. This is particularly evident in the Twin
Cities grocery market where two major grocery wholesalers are supplying
better than 70X of all grocery stores. These two suppliers haue two
major retail outlets . Cub Foods and Rainbow Foods that often anchor the
regional shopping centers. Because these large stores have� such drawing
power they siphon off normal demand in growing and developing areas.
This is the case in Rosemount.
A second significant factor at work in determining the feasibility of
shopping center development is that these large stores build in
"anticipation" that the population is going to grow and therefore growth
and demand will occ�xr. Because they are large they can incur some
initial losses. to buiid a competitive advantage by keeping competition
out of the market place and therefore strongiy influencing development.
Since Rosemount is only four (4) miles fram one of these regional
centers Rosemount might be passed over if it does not build its own
community shopping area now, before the next regianal area is
identified.
Rosemount is not alone, as other second and third ring suburbs work to
develop and keep their retail areas strong by offering community
assistance. Chanhassen is an example of a community that was
experiencing a siphoning of retail demand from retail areas in
neighboring communities . Recently the City stepped forward and provided
a package of incentives and a significant center has developed. Along
with the center has come substantial additional retail demand and
development as residents are attracted to the area far shopping. Both
existing and these emerging retailers are benefiting from this expanded
activity.
Most retail professionals familiar with Chanhassen have said that
Chanhassen would not have the retail business it has today if the
community hadn't stepped forward with a package of incentives
principally for a grocery store anchor and the proper secondar,� anchor.
The combination of siphoning off demand and going to the next regional
retail center site in "anticipation" that growth will occur puts the
smaller retail areas at a competitive disadvantage.
It is a generally recognized fact that to have a healthy community
shopping center with its service shops and small retail business, a
grocery store anchor is required to draw customers in significant
numbers and on a regular basis to help other small retail businesses
(such as dry cleaners, shoe shop, video store, drug store, beauty shop,
barber, travel agent, sports store, clothing store, etc. ) have the
customer base to surdive in today's competitive retail market. �
�
We believe that Rosemount desires and deserves a one stop community
shopping center. If one is to develop it needs a grocery store anchor.
To get a grocery store anchor the developer needs to provide the grocery
store anchor with signifieant incentive the first couple of years and �
less incentive in the later years of its iease. With the balanced mix
of incentives the whole community wi11 prosper.
Not only does the grocer need help and assistance, the smaller
businesses and the secandary anchors need smaller amounts of assistance.
This assistance will produce significant payroll . employment and real
estate taxes for the community, which will contribute positively to
Rosemount's quality of life. �
Without the help of the community and its economic deuelopment catalyst,
the Port Authority, it is unlikely that a community shopping center will
develop in the near term. '
�..
j
i
� � � � . . . . .i
, �
�
G, Projeet Impact I
�
. ,
1. Job Creation �
�
Full -time Part-time �tal
�� ��
Grocery (1994) 30 45 75
5�
Shops h r 20 lg 25
Secondary Anc o � . �
Freestanding Retail Sites -�
Tota1 62 143 205
2. Estimate of Real Estate Taxes Generated
Phase I Shoppin9 Center b150.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Qo1lars �
Freestanding Retail Si�es (2)
A. Approx. 41,550 sq. ft. 18.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Dollars
B. Approx. 12,160 sq. ft. Z.00�Annual Rea1 Estat� 1993 Tax Dollars
Total First Phase 5175.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Doilars
.;
Phase II Shopping Center 5 45.OU0 Annual Rea1 Estate 1993 Tax Dollars =
5220.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Dollars '
Total at Full Completion �
�
�
;
3. Psychic Benefit to the Cammunity
A significant part of a community`s identity is its shopping area.
Currently aur principle shopping area has served the needs of the
community well over the years. However, now as the community
grows, our population increases and our traffic patterns change.
we need the area for more stores and related parking to serve the
shopping needs af our larger population. We are fortunate to have
the space to expand the downtown area down Highway 3 to include
the County Road 42 corridor.
Today's customers are looking for one-stop shapp�n9 and the
Rosemount Viilage Square, as proposed, will begin to address this
one-stop shopping need. It should help keep residents' shopping
activity in Rosemount and their dollars spent in town which should
make a1T business within Rosemount stronger and give us a new
sense of pride for our community.
_ _ _._ ,�
�. _
.. � � , _
H. Impact on Public Infrastructure
1. Sanitary Sewer:
Sanitary Sewer currently serves the property and no burden greater than
what was planned 15 expected.
2. Water:
Water currently. serves the praperty and no need greater than what was
planned is expected. �
3. Storm Sewer: f
�
Further analysjs needs to be conducted to determine the likeTy impact
that the project will have on the storm water system. Such analysis and
proper sizing will be part of the finai submission to the. City. �{
- ;
4. Roads, Highways and Traffi�c •:" ;
A. Access to the site wi11 be off of Chippendale Avenue �
and Canada Avenue and directly aff of County Road 42. �
Customers wili exit in a reverse but similar fashion. There :
wiil be an eastbound deceleration lane on County Road 42 for �
entering traffic. �,
!I
t
B. Trip Generatian g
�
s
�urther analysis of the trip generation from the #
proposed develapment and its impact an surroundin9 streets =�
needs to be completed prior to final approval . ii
�1
�
�
. . . . . . � . . �t
t
R
}
�
�
�
i
� .
# :
� �'
= 'i
, ,
.. . . . . . .f..
3
� GARY H.STEVENSdN,R.L.S.
�� �O T� ���„�/ Y T� I.ANOCNFOR T ON DtRECTOA
(6t2)89t•7087
SURVEY&LAND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT FAX(6t2)89t-703t
• � � • t 4955 GALAXIE AVENUE APPLE VALLEY.MINNE50TA 55124-8579
.,��,..,
:
>�4:.;—��c
��';�� �
��'!� ..�`' . . .
� '
� July 13 , 1993
City of Rosemount
1167 - I45th St. E.
P.ose�e�srt N�T 55068 .
.
ATT: Stephan Jilk, Administrator
. ROSEMOUNT VILLAGE SQUARE
Dear Mr. Jilk: ,. �
The Dakota County Plat Commission met on July 12, 1993, to
reconsider the revised preliminary plat of ROSEMOUNT �IILLAGE
SQUARE. Said plat is adjacent ta C.S.A.H. NO. 42 and are,
therefore, subject to the Dakota County Contiquous Plat
Ordinance.
The Plat Commission on a 3 to 1 vote recominends the
follawing:
1. ) A right in only at the proposed access location is the
only allowed intersection with the existing conditions
at Canada Avenue. This is a variance from our
guidelines since it is not a public street. However,
with the internal road netwark of the development it .
serves the same purpose. Right turns onto C.S.A.H. NO.
42 from this property need to be prevented at this time �
to minimize L'-4urns on C.S.A.�. '.:0. 42 a� Czna�a P_v�n���s.
2 . ) If the median at Canada Avenue is closed now, a right
out and a left in wou].d be possible. Future guzdelines,
however, may not allow this type of intersection this
� close to Chippendale Avenue. '
3 . ) In conjunction with this development, staff recommends
that the County and City work together to improve
traffic in this area by installing right turn lanes at
Chippendale, Canada, and fiH #3 . •
The City should respond to these concepts before the �
development moves to the final plat stage.
No work shall commence in the County right of way until a
permit is obtained from the County Highway Department.
•�nced on Heeveletl Paper ' t'l�; �� 0Trjj1e SO[ll[ti7n.� .:ea EQUAI OPP4RTUNtTY EMPLOYER
�''r�T . � J . .
. � , f
;
�
i
I
. .� � � . . i� ..
� . . . � . � . . . - . : � � .
�
�
� � � . . . . .(�.
I
I
� � . . � . . . . .� .
Sin erely, �
�Gary H. Stevenson �
Dakota County Surveyor & Land Information Director
Secretary, Plat Commission
GHSJvi
�
cc: Carlson Properties , f
Bud Osmundsan, City Engineer �
Tom Heilberg ._� g
Dave Everds, County Engineer
Louis Breimhurst, Physical Development Director
Brandt Richardson, County Administrator
Steven Loeding, County Commissioner
�
, �
I . Development Time Table
The developer anticipates the necessary leasing and financing
commitments so construction can commence late summer ar early fa11 1993,
presuming an adequate City assistance package is agreed to by the
necessary pub]ic agencies.
�• Cost Estimate of Project
1• Shopping Center
i
A• Land �
B• Construction and Im rovements E �50.000 �
p 52,50Q.000 ,
�
2• Pad Sites for Freestanding Retail Structures �
. ,
�
A. land ;
1• Large outlot -- Range of Value b180,000 t;o 3225.OQ0 �
2• Smaller outlot -- Range of Value 5100.000 to 5125,000 '
B• Construction & Improvements ��
!
1• Large outlot -- Range of Value 5500,Q00 to b650,000 `
2• Smaller outlot -- Range of 1/alue 5125,000 to E280,000 �
i
K. Nature and Amount of Project Assistance Requested j
i
1 • Site Oevelopment Assistance �
I
A. Amount: Approximately b380,000 over six to seven years . �
,
B• Expenditure Categories
1• Roadway improvements, including grading �
2• Parking lot constructian• surface and curbs ;
3• Parking lot lighting � l
4. Landscaping �
5• Storm sewer construction
I
,
�
i
� � . . . . � . � � ' .
. . � � � . . . � � � � � � :
. . . . � . . . j .
(
�
!
r � � � � . � . . . , .
L. Preliminary Cost Recap and Financial Proforma
Rosemount 1lillage Square
Preiiminary Cost Recap and Project Financial Proforma
6/8/93
Building Area: 52,Ofl0 S.F.
Leasable Area: 52.000 S.f. �
Parking Provided: Approximately 375 autos � '
�
�
Shopping Center Costs: 1
F
land 5775,000 (Approximately 7.2 acres or 313,600 sq. ft. ) 52.47/sq. ft. �
i
Buildings �
Site Costs: 5404.000 �
General Conditions 514O,UOQ �
Building Shel1 31.050.000 .
;
Leasehold Impravements '
A) Grocery 490,000 '� �
B) Retaii ZZQ...94Q
Total Direct Costs Buildings 52,350.OQ0
Indirect Costs:
Architect. Leasing, Marketing
and Professional Fees 225.000
Financing Fees 50,000
Interim Interest 135,Q00
legal and Consulting
and Miscellaneous �Q
Total Indirect Costs 5485.000
Shopping Center Costs 53.610.000
;
�
�
;
,
. i
,
, � � �
�
,
(
Ros�mount Village Square
� Pre{iminary lncome and Expense Summary
Gross Scheduled income: Rents Averaged Over First Five Years af Lease
June 30, 1993 Draff
q• B.. .
' Rents required by " Market rents
costs and retum on
investment standards �
Per Maricet Five
Leased Square � Required Pe�Square Scheduted Annual (5)Year
Tenant �gg Fsot Raf� S�t f4.4�B�IIt �l]t Difference Ditference
Grocer 25.000 S.F. S7.00 S 175.000 5 4.25 S 108,375 S66.625 5333,125
Sub Anchor 10,000 S.F. 59.00 S 90,000 S 7.50 S 75,Q00 $15,000 5 75,�
ShoPs 14,600 S.F. $12.C� S 175200 S 10.00 S 146.OQ0 529,20Q S 14�i3O�
Totai Annual Gross Scheduted Income $4d0,2t10 Total Dift. $329,3�5 $110,825 $55d,125
A B �
1
Annual Gross Schedu(ed Income: S4d0,2Q0 S329,375 S 110,825 5554,125 �
Less Vaccancy and Credit loss(3�) S 22.0� S 22,000 tb.7�) ;
Adjusted Gross Schedule Income 5418,200 $30T,375
Less Expenses: .
Vacancy Charges S 11.050 S 11,050
CAM Charge 2,6�S.F.x S4.25/S.F. !
Leasing ond Remodeiing Expense S 30,000 S 30,000 �
Administrative Expense S 5,000 5 5,000 ?
Structural and Roof Maintenance 7S .500 � 7.500 �
i
Totai Expenses: S 53,550 $ 53,550 i
Net Operating income: $364,fi50 S253,825
Debt Service Summary: j
Proposed Debt and Terms: Mortgage $2,850,000 9°b Infierest 25 Year Amortizt�fiion �
9
,�
Less Debt Service S28b,995 5286,995 ;
Cash Flow $ 77,655 <S 33.170> ;
�
i'
;
c 1 �
(
i
I
�
. �
M. Fifteen Year Projected Cash Flaw j
i
1. Assumptions Summary -- tollowing two pages
�
2. Cash Flow Without Assistance -- pages three and four that fo1low �
,
a
3. Cash Flaw With Assistance -- pages five and six that follow
�
� 1,
i
.. �
I
i
;
,
;
;
.I
.
�
CARLSON PROPERTIES OF ROSEMOUNT
ROSEMOUNT VILLAGE SQUARE
52,000 SQ. FT. C�tUNT�'Y SHOPPING CENTER
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONS
FIFTEEN YEAR PERIOD
NOT AUDI7ED ;
;
,
i
This financial projection is based on developine a new 52,Q00 square foot shoppin� center �
in Rosemount� Minnesota at County Road 42 and Chippendale Avenue, The center is to be
anchored by a grocery store and a drug store. This projection presents, as of June 28, '
1993� to the be�t of management's knowled�e and bel ief, the Center's e�ected cash f lows far
the projectian pe�iod when the Center is developed. The purpose of this preaentation is to '
analyze the feasibility of developing the Center. Accordingly, this'�projection may not be
useful for other purposes. The assumptions disclosed herein are those that m�nagement
bel ieves are signif icant to the projection; however, management has nat tlecided that it wi 1]
develap the Center. Even if such a Center is developed, there will usualiy be diffe�ences
between projected and actual results, beeause evertts and circumstances frequently do nat
occu� as expected, a�d those differences may be material.
1. The City of Rosemaunt has expressed the possibility of affering up to $250,000 cash
of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as ths form of reimbursement of infrastructure costs
associated with the d�velopment. To avoid bonding costs,the project can look at a pay-
as-you-go Tax Increment Financing plan. Calculating the present value of a six and
one half (6 1/2) year payback of the $250,0OO.OQ at ten percent {14%) interest it is
approximately $384,400.00. One run shows $2,850,000.00 with no Tax Increment Finaneing
pay-as-you-go assiatance and the other run shows $2,850,000.00 of debt plus the annual
Tax Increment Financing income.
2. The Grocery Tenant's annual Base Rent is projected to reflect a letter af intent with
Gateway Food dated Apri1 23, 1993.
3. The Grocery Tenant is responsible for maintenance of hard surfaces, snow remaval ,
parking lot & building lighti�g, maintenance of a secu�ity system and lawn 8� shrub
maintenance in the area designated Grocery Tenants cammon area. ,
4. The Second Anchor Tenants' annual Base Rent on 10,000 square feet of space is assumed ,;
to be $B5,000 for year one, $75,000 (10,000 square feet x $7.50/sf) for years two ;
through five, and then increase 4% annually thereafter.
� .
5. The in-line Tenants snnual Base Rent is assumed to average $t0.50/sf for the first one
year and then increase 49K annualiy thereafter. In-line Tenant Base Rent assumes esch
tenant wilt average two months of free Base Rent as a leasing incentive. The 17,000
square feet of in-line tenant space is leased according to the folloWing sch�dule:
Sctuare Feet T�'min�
5;500 , At Opening
4,500 Six Months Later
4.30Q Start of Year 2
14,300
2.700 � Vacancy allowance (15.94% af in-iine
tenant space; 5% of total space)
17,000 � .
6. Common area participation assumes tennants pay their pro ratsf� �hare of the annual
common area operating expenses of the 52,000 square foot Center.
7. Operating expenses are based on management's estimates for a comparable center of this
size and design. Expenses, other than reai estate taxes, management fees and leasing
commissions (separately estimatedJ , are expected to increase at an annuat rate of 4%.
8. In each case, a 9� rate of interest and a twenty-five (25) year amortization periad
are used. The annual debt service js projected to be $287,005 based on a loan
principal balance of $2,850,000.
9. Total and net project costs are estimated to be:
A, Project costs:
Construction Costs and Land Value $3,475,OOQ
Construction Period Interest � 135,000
Total Project Costs $3,610,000
Equity: $ 760,OQ0
Loan of: $2,850,000
;
;
CI�LSON Pa4PE9TIE5 QF flOSE�OUHT 1/ 1/93
80SE�OC�HT YILLaGE SQUIHE
Pfl4JEC?ION 0� CASH FLOfIS
VITHOUY T1X-ItICflEHEtiT FINANCIlIG
YEd$ ! YEifl 2 YEAB 3 YEifl 4 YE►fl 5 YEtA 6 YEAB 1 YEAfl 8
INCO�E -------- --------- --------- -------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
BASE flENTS
Grocary store 112,50Q t25,440 13T,500 150,000 156,256 181,�50 181,250 181,250
2nd inchor 65,Ofl0 75,400 75,80d 75,000 15,000 i8,040 81,I40 84,300
Ia-tine tenanta 77,500 15T,300 163,592 It0,I70 117,434 l84,184 19i,620 G93,342
Total baae renta Z55,000 357,300 316,092 39S,t70 408,Z84 443,434 453,9T0 464,892
CO�HAH IflEA PAflTICIPLTIOH
Grocery atore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� 2nd Inchor 18,000 48�600 58,900 59,000 6(,300 63,&00 86,404 B9,100
In-line tenanta 13,954 71,405 82,231 85,545 88,894 92,�12 96,010 99,816
Total participation 31,950 120,005 139,132 t44,545 150,i94 I5B,21Z l62,470 168,g16
. .
T1Y INCflElfElt'f FIN�CI�G IttCO�E 8 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 '
TOTAI. INCOHE 286,950 4TT,305 515,224 539,7(5 55$,478 599,648 616,440 633,868
OPEfl1TIHG EYPEHSES: �;�
CO�HOH AflEI EYPEASES
fleal eatae taisa 8,000 T5,500 94,500 98,280 10Z,3I1 106,299 ii4,551 114,973
Inanrance 6,384 6,835 6,900 1,t76 1,463 7,162 8,092 8,395
Uanage�ent feea 9,125 11,615 11,930 12,259 12,642 13,109 13,636 14,t82
Otilitiee 8,180 8,501 8,849 9,20( 9,569 9,851 {4,350' 10,1G4
Trash re�oval 12,150 13,260 13,190 14,342 14,916 15,513 16,t34 16,799
�arn care 2,660 2,766 2.997 2,992 3,112 3,236 3,365 �,54fl
Parting lot areeping 7!0 970 801 833 866 901 33T 9T4
Snor reaova! 3,190 3,318 3,45t 3,589 9,733 �,882 4,037 4,198
Cleaning end taiatenance l,250 4,420 4,599 4,981 4,97Z S,I11 5,378 5,593
flepiira 2,B80 Z,T66 Z,879 Z,99Z 3,112 3,236 3,365 3,500
Adqertiaing 2,130 2,215 2,304 2,396 2,492 2,592 2,69fi 2,8II4
5npplies 430 441 4G5 484 503 5Z9 544 566
Seenrity [,060 1,102 1,146 1,192 1,240 1,290 1,342 1,336
Cicease teea l60 i6B 173 t80 187 I94 Z42 Z10
�iaceilaneoug
Total Coason Area Eip 59,915 I33,481 154,6�8 160,697 186,9?8 (73,660 180,609 181,834
NON CONMOH lfiEl EIPEtfSES
beasing coui�aiona 15,400 1,500 5,000 5,000 5,U00 5,000 5,Z00 5,410
Iegal t� profesaional 1,000 1,040 l,080 1,120 1,t60 I,210 t,260 1,3t0
Vacaat area eipenae
Anchor proao ! incent 85,000 45,000 ZO,OOa
Anchor oanage�ent 4,6Q0 6,250 6,895 7,SQ0 9,813 9,Q63 9,063 9,063 {
fleaerve for atructurai/rooi 3,I90 � 3,320 �,450 3,590 3,730 3,88U 4,440 4,200
�iacellaaeoua
Total tion-Couon lrea Ezp I08,690 63,110 36,405 t7,2t4 t7,703 f9,153 19,563 19,983
TOTAL OPEflATING EIPENSES 168,4fl5 f96,597 I91,�63 177,901 184,68t 192,$t3 200,172 201,$t9
NET OPEflATING I1tC0�E 1l8,545 280,108 �24,161 361,808 393,�97 4�6,833 416,26$ 426,051
DEBT SEflYICE Z87,005 287,405 287,005 289,005 281,005 287,005 2E7,005 287,005
AET CiSH EbaN (l68,460) ifi,297) 31,136 74,803 88,792 i19,827 I29,263 139,Od6
�,.�..�.-__._ __
CtflLSOH`P90PEflT�ES OF flOSEIl4UNT
flOSEKOUNT VIi.L1GE SQUAEE
PEOJECTIOH OF C1SH EL9YS
VITflOUT TAY-INCBEBENT FINANCING
YEAE 9 YEtfl !0 YEAfl ll YEIfl 12 YEAB 13 YEAfl !4 YE1R 15 �
INCONE --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
BlSE H£NTS
Grocary atore 181,250 tS1,250 193,950 193,750 193,150 193,750 l93,750
2nd lnchor 89,T00 9t,200 94,800 98,600 102,500 lO6,600 f10,900
In-tine tenants 207,950 215,644 224,Z24 233,233 242,528 252,252 262,405
Total base rents 416,30Q 488,094 5I2,174 52�5,583 538,778 552,802 567,055�
COY�dN IflEA PAflTICIPI?ION
Grocsrp atore 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2nd lnehor 11,900 ?4,800 17,800 80,9p0 84,f00 8T,54U 91,400 ,
In-liae teninta 103,845 107,980 I13,288 116,791 121,49d t26,320 131,377
Total participttion 115,�l5 �l5Z,180 19Q,089 197,69t Z05,590 213,820 22Z,377
i
T11 I1tCflE�ExT FI2tAHCIHG I�CQBE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTdL ItiCO�E 652,045 610,874 102,862 123,2�4 944,368 16B,422 189,432
..
OPEflATING EYPENSES:
C01(�ON tflEA EIPEttSES
fleal estae taies I19,572 124,355 129,329 l34,502 139,882 145,�l71 l5I,Z96
In�arance 8,13I 9,080 9,4#3 9,82I t0,Z14 l0,823 i1,048
Ba�nage�ent fees I4,753 15,342 15,951 I6,592 17,251 11,943 t8,865
Otilities 11,I95 11,643 lZ,109 12,593 t3,OS7 13,621 t4,t66
Traa6 reroval 17,450 t8,148 18,874 19,623 20,414 2i,23i 22,480
Larn care 3,640 3,786 3,93T 4,0fl4 4,258 4,428 4,605
Par�in� lot ereepin$ 1,013 1,054 J,096 1,14U 1,186 t,233 1,282
Snor renoval 4,386 4,54! 4,723 4,9iZ 5,108 5,�t2 5,5Z4
Cleaning and vainteaance 5,811 6,050 6,292 6,544 6,806 7,018 7,361
Bepairs 3,840 3,186 3,937 4,094 4,258 4,428 4,605
Advertising 2,916 1,033 �,154 3,280 3,�11 3,547 3,fi89
Suppliea 589 613 638 664 691 919 148
Securitp 1,452 1,510 1,57Q 1,633 t,69B 1,766 1,837
Licease feea Z18 227 236 245 255 ZfiS 216
�iscetinneous
Total Corron Area Eip (95,352 203,i68 211,289 219,743 228,529 237,671 247,182
?tON CO��ON IREI EYPENSES
I.easing coa�isaioae 5,630 5,860 6,090 6,314 B,5S0 6,840 7,1I0
Legel t� profesaion=1 t,3B0 1,4l0 1,410 I,S30 t,590 1,650 l,920
Vacani area eipenae :
A¢chor praeo k incent
inchor vana$e�eat 9,063 9,063 9,888 9,fi88 9,688 9,688 9,688
fleserve iflr atructural/roof 4,374 4,540 4,720 4,9t0 5,110 5,310 5,520
�iacelTaneoua
Total 8on-Co�von Area Ezp 20,423 20,813 21,968 22,458 2Z,968 23,48$ 24,038
TOTAL OPEfltTING EIPEHSES 215,175 224,Q4t 233,257 242,Z01 Z51,497 261,159 2?t,220
NET OPEflATiNG IHCONE 436,270 44$,833 469,605 48t,013 49a,871 505,263 5t8,21Z
DEBT SEflVICE 287,005 287,005 287,005 267,005 281,005 287,005 287,405
YE2 CiSg FIOq l49,265 159,828 t82,640 194,068 205,866 218,Z58 231,206
.flLSON PEOPEBTIES OF a0SE�0UNT 9/ 1193
'S�lfOUNTrVILLAGF,SQU1flE '
:OJECTION OF CASH FLOYS
:TH TAY-INCBEHENT FINANCING
_YEAa 1 YEIB 2 YEIH 3 YE►fl 4 YEAfl S YE►H 6 YEAfl 7 YEAfl 8
�CQNE ----- ---------
B1SE gENTS
Crocery stare t12,500 125,000 I3?,54A 154,000 156,250 181,250 l81�250 18t,Z50
2ad Inchor 65,000 15,000 75,000 95,040 95,000 9B4O04 8l,100 84,300
In-line tenants 19,500 157,300 1$3,592 110,170 I77,034 184,184 t91,620 199,343
------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Totil baae reata 235,000 359,300 376,092 395,170 448,284 443,434 453,9T0 464,�91
COBtiAII tREt PIflTICIPI'fION
Grocerp etora D 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0
2nd lnchoc I8,000 48�BOQ 56,900 53,OOa fi1t300 63,800 66,400 69�10A
In-line teniatr 13,950 T1,405 82,132 85,545 88,894 92,412 96,070 99,876
Tot=} pirticipation 31,950 1ZQ,405 139,13E 144,545 l50,194 156,3tZ 162',470 l6�,9TB
TtI INCBEHENT FIMANCING IUCO�E 0 44,000 54,000 54,000 5�,000 54,Q00 54,000 S#,000
---- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- - ---------
TAb INCO�£ 286,950 5I1,305 569,224 593,?t5 612,478 653,646 610,�440 881,8`68
EflATIHG EYPENSES: ,;�
CO�H011 AgEA EYPEt(SES
fleal eatae taiea 8,000 75,500 94,540 98,280 lOZ,211 ID6,299 110,531 114,973
Inaacaace 6,380 6,835 6,904 9,I16 9,463 1,162 8,072 8,395
Nanige�ent feea 7,I25 Il,BiS 11,930 12,Z59 12,6Q2 t3,109 13,636 14�182
Otilitiea S,i80 8,509 8,849 9,201 8,569 9,952 l0,354 I0,764
Traah raroval 1Z,150 13,a80 13,790 1�,342 14,9i6 15,513 16,134 I6,�79
1.axn care 2,6fi0 2,766 2,81T 2,99Z 3,i1Z 3,Z36 3,365 3,50fl
ParYia� lat areeping ?40 770 801 B33 866 90i 937 974
Snor re�ov:l 3,t90 3,3I8 3,451 3,589 �,9�3 3,882 4,037 4,198
Cleaning and iainteaance 4,Z50 4,420 4,597 4,98i 4,972 5,171 5,318 5,593
Bepaira 2,660 Z,166 Z,817 2,992 3,112 3,236 3,365 3,540
Advectiaing 2,130 2,215 2,304 Z,398 2,492 Z,59Z 2,696 2.804
Snpptiea 430 447 465 484 503 523 544 56B
Secarity 1,060 1,t02 I,146 1,192 t,240 1,2fl0 1,34Z 1,39fi
bicanae teea l6fl t86 1?3 184 t87 i94 ZD1 Zt4
�isce}laneoua
Total Cordon Area Eip 59,915 133,487 154,658 I64,691 168,979 193,66fl 180,609 189,834
NON GO��OH AflEE EYPENSES
Leaeiag eoaiisaiona tS,�00 9,SQ0 5,00� 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,Z00 5,410
I.ega! � profesaional I,D00 1,O�Q 1,4E0 1,120 1,t60 t,2t0 I,260 I,310
Vacant area ezpanse
Anchor provo k iacent 85,000 45,OOa 20,000
Aachor vanaga�eat 4,500 6,Z50 6,875 1,500 1,813 9,863 9,063 9,063
fleserve for etructural/roof 3,t94 3,320 3,450 3,590 3,130 3,884 4,040 #,Z00
�iecetlaneoua
--- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Total Non-Coaion Area Eip I08,630 63,110 36,405 i9,Z10 11,T03 13,153 19,563 t9,983
- --------- ----•---- --------- --------- --------- ---------
�I. OPEflITING EXPENSES [68,405 196,5fl7 191,Q63 I1i,909 184,88t 192,8I3 200,i92 207,8t1
-- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
OPEfldTING INCO�E 1I8,545 320,108 378,I61 4I5,808 421,T99 46Q,833 470,268 480,U51
t SEflVICE 2$1,005 281,005 287,005 289,005 287,005 281,005 287,Q05 287,005
-•---- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
CASH Fld9 (I68,460) 33,103 91,t56 i28,803 140,192 113,821 183,2B3 193,046
:LSOH PfldPEflTIES OF &OSE�OOIiT
�EHOUNT �IL`LA�E�3QUtBE � � �
J3ECTIOii OF C1SH FI.4YS � � � � � ' � � � � � �
i H �TAX-INCflE�EiiT FTN1NC�lIG � � � � � � �
' IEAfl 9 YEAfl !0 YEifl 11 YEIR 12 YEA� 13 YEAR 14 'IE18 15
�4�E --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- �
BASE 8EN1'S
Grocery etore 181,250 181,250 193,750 193,150 193,750 193,150 193,150
2nd lnc6or 81,780 9t,Z00 94,800 98,640 l02,S08 106,800 11U,900
In-line teaants 201,350 215,64� 224,224 233,233 242,52� 25Z,252 282,405
Totil base reata . 476,300 488,094 512,174 625,583 538,798 552,602 567,055
C0�111N IflEA PAfl?ICIPITIO�
Grocerp atore 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2nd tnchor 7[,900 14,800 11,800 84,900 8l,100 81,500 91,OQ4
In-�ine tantat: 103,845 IQ1,8B0 113,288 116,T81� 121,494 iZ6�310 t3i,399
Tot:t psrticipa#ioa� 115,745 ISZ,TEO 19Q,08S i9T,B91 205,590 213,820 221,371
TLI INCfiE�E�? PI11t�C1�G INCOgE
taL INCO�E 652,045 670,874 9Q2,8B2 9Z3,214 144,368 166,4Z2 T99,�432
�flATiliG E3PEliSES: +:�
CQgHON lBEI EYPENSES
fleil eat�e tarea 119,572 124;355 129,329 134,502 133,�82 145,l77 15i,296
Inaarsnca S,93I 9,080 9,443 9,821 10,214 1D,6a3 11,048
8anige�eat feea 14,153 i5,342 15,951 16,592 19,251 17,943 •18,865
Utititiea 11,i95 1i,�43 12,t09 12,593 l9,431 l3,621 14,t66
Trrah reroval t7,450 l8,148 18,874 19,�Z9 20,41� 21,231 22,080
' i.ara care 3,640 3,986 3,937 4,094 4,258 4,428 4,605
Parkiag lot aree�ing 1,013 t,054 1,496 1,140 1,188 1,133 i,282
Saor re�oval 4,366 4,54i 4,1fl3 4,912 5,108 5,312 5,524
Cleaning and �aiatenance 5,817 6,054 6,292 6,544 6,906 1,078 T,361
fleptira 3,640 3,786 3,937 4,094 4,258 4,428 4,605
, Advertiaing 2,9t6 3,033 3,154 3,280 �,41t - 3,549 3,689
Suppiiea 589 613 638 664 69t T19 748
Secnritp 1,452 1,510 1,570 t,633 1,688 1,�G6 1,93?
I,icanae fees 218 229 236 Z45 255 265 276
' �iacellaaeous
Totat Caveon lrea Eip I95,352 203,f68 Z1I,2�9 2I9,743 228,529 237,671 249,182
N4N C0��4N AflEI EYPENSES
l.eaein$ co0�issions 5,630 5,860 6,090 6,330 8,580 6,840 1,110
' i.egal t profeasionat- 1,36Q 1,410 1,4T0 t,530 1,59Q t,850 1,120
Yactut area ezpense
lnchor pro�o t incant
Anchor iaeigetent 9,463 9,063 9,688 9,688 9,698 9,688 9,668
Beterve for atrncturtflroaf 4,310 4,540 4,T20 4,914 5,110 5,310 5,520
discelianeons
Tota1 Naa-Couon lrea Eip 20,423 20,8T3 21,968 22,458 22,968 23,488 24,038
�I. OPE�1?ING EIPEHSES 215,115 224,fl4I 2�3,257 242,201 251,499 261�159 Z9t,22A
', OPEHATINf INCO�E 436,Z70 446,833 469,605 481,093 492,811 505,263 518,21Z
T SEHVICE 289,045 281,005 287,005 287,Q05 287,005 289,005 289,005
ClSH FL4Q 149,2B5 l59,828 18z,600 194,068 205,866 218,258 231,206
- _ __ _. __ _. __ ___ �
. � �` k . � . . . . . � . . .
�. Summary ,
Upon final agreement from the City of Rosemount detailing its commitment
to provide 5380.000 of funds for site improvements. Carlson Properties
of Rosemount is prepared to commit to bui}d a shopping center cantaining
approximately 52,Q00 square feet to serve the community and its
surrounding area, subject to final lease negotiations and permanent
financing on approximately seven (7) acres of an 8.6 acre site. .
Carlson Properties of Rosemount is excited about the opportunity to help
the City of Rosemount grow and reach out to meet the needs and wants of
the community. We look forward to continui.ng the dialogue abnut our E
request and action on our request by the Planning Commission, the Port
Authority and City Cauncil . �
�
� i r
i
:
� � . �
�.
�
�
�
;
x