Memo- SuperValu Expansion Project
.
Economic Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: HRA Board
FROM: '/l6Jim Kerrigan
/{
I
DA TE:
February 29,2000
SUBJECT:
SuperValu Expansion Project
PURPOSE OF MEMO
.
The following information is meant to provide the HRA board updated information
on the project being proposed by SuperValu to expand their perishable
warehouse. This Item is scheduled for discussion at the March 14 work session.
Representatives from SuperValu will be present at this meeting.
OVERVIEW
As previously detailed, this project will involve expanding the present SuperValu
perishable warehouse, at 11 th Avenue and Fifth Street South, east to Sixth
Avenue. It is being proposed that Sixth Avenue South be vacated to facilitate the
project. Fifth Street, south of the subject site, would also be relocated to align
with this road to the east.
SuperValu has now held one meeting with the neighborhood to discuss the
project. There were 30 to 40 people at this meeting, and the responses were
fairly positive. Only one person spoke strongly against closing Sixth Avenue.
SuperValu stated they would again meet with the neighborhood when the traffic
and noise studies, which are presently underway, are completed.
SuperValu had originally intended to have a concept review with the Zoning &
Planning Commission at the end of February, but has rescheduled this to the end
of March.
.
Memo to HRA, February 29, 2000 - Page 2
.
PRIMARY ISSUES TO CONSIDER
The following is an update of items that were previously discussed with the
Council, or in the case of tax increment, a new issue:
(> SuperValu is still attempting to negotiate a purchase of the former Country
Club warehouse property. At this time they are hopeful they can negotiate
a sale. If this cannot be accomplished they will ask the City to instigate an
eminent domain process. To implement this process, the Council would
need to approve a development agreement (probably at the April 4
meeting). At this same meeting there would also need to be a pubiic
hearing to consider the sale of the subject property, acquired through
eminent domain, to SuperValu.
Under the terms of the development agreement, the City would not be
obligated to proceed with eminent domain until SuperValu had secured all
necessary land use approvals--CUP. variances, platting.
o SuperValu is continuing to refine their overall site plan, and based an the
proposed schedule, the Z & P Commission would consider the conditional
use permit and other land use approvals necessary for this project at their
Aprii 25 meeting. A traffic study is in the process of being completed.
.
Attached is the Phase ~ noise study report. This study identifies some
noise concerns vl/hich will need to be addressed as part of this project.
", Because SuperValLi cloes not presently have an "interest"in this property,
staff would require that they undertake one of the fai/owing steps prior to
proceeding with processing land use/zoning applications:
() Secure permission from the owner of the subject property to
proceed with land use approval
") Approve a development agreement, which allows for an eminent
domain process
...} Enter into a purchase agreement for the subject property
() City staff met with representatives of SuperValu February 23. At that
meeting it was detailed by SuperValu that they would be requesting tax
increment assistance in con.iunction with this project.
At the time that the Hennepin County Public Works property was
redeveloped, a tax increment district was established that incorporated all
the Super\lalu property, the Country Club warehouse property, the
property north of Third Street South, and the property east of Fifth Avenue
South. Article \I of the development agreement, which was executed as
.
lVIemo to HRA, February 29, 2000 - Page 3
.
part of that project, details the specifics regarding when tax increment
assistance might be considered by the City for future projects undertaken
by SuperValu.
The agreement specifically states that SuperValu may request tax
increment assistance if they undertake redevelopment on any of the
following parcels:
Q Former Country Club warehouse property
() Industrial property north of Third Street South between Fifth
Avenue and Highway 169
@ SuperValu North Annex property
The development agreement further states that even though the HRA is
not obligated to provide tax increment assistance, it may for the following
purposes:
.
() Acquisition and demolition costs in excess of the fair market
value of the land only
o Transportation-related public improvements completed as part
of the County redevelopment that are necessary to facilitate
SuperValu's overall campus project south of Excelsior
Boulevard
CONCLUSION
I\~o action is being requested of the Council at this time. The Council needs to
identify issues, concerns, and whether they wish to have any additional informal
meetings prior to taking action on this project. Specifically, the Council needs to
provide direction to SuperValu on whether there is an interest in providing them
with tax increment assistance for this project.
ATTACHMENTS
o Proposed site plan
o Article V of Development Agreement between the HRA and SuperValu,
inc., dated July 20, 1999, re: tax increment
o Letter from SuperValu re: tax increment
9 Revised project schedule
o Phase 1 Noise Study Report, Midwest Acoustics & Electronics
.
, ,
~ 'l. 'I.' .
,\,"\ "Ie )(
\ . \ '-
, "
, "
"
III
If
el ~
!
I
1"
11
i
I
t "
...~
~
... .-- F. . 11 -. ~ HInos 133lliS 01:l~
.. 5 ----
~-O 1--')
r~' .. ~..-~---:4 ~/~
(I
~ ~
, II
'1.1
f I
I
II
I
I,
! I:
.~
"""""
J
l
]
J
1
J
Ja
J
I Ztn
.--J 0 0
-= :;oC
] :r:r
aJ CD
x 0 0
J ~~
. 0 0
~JJ: $ $
J=U
Alfll::>\f::l ^83~080 N/\fV'J
.:IS r!iO"6L!; = mlHdlOru:
0_1
. LJ; .W.. ..... D.-. tJ!: -. ~~.
.... . 0 0 '. ~. ~
x .. Q,. 0 '() . " r;... '. .., ,- 0
--Ix 0 gO D,"' D ~ ~
JWm X &DlUS ... )or.
~: :1(.. ..1..){
81
lWDl
'\1__.....
(au_I
I ~-.....""o.lj
.. ... r _
ll1VJS :lIlIdVIIll
S-dS::>
-- F
EO-OOO..6
--
--
HJ.lION_
ng :r ... "'tll
~g O:rm
;1i!",:;lC2
III ~-I-
-I en '" c.n
~ ~Ro:::r
~"'>
~ :ra:l
>r-
:iim
"'n
m
Z
-f
m
:;lC
2 ~ I I
_ II
!. ~
It 8 II II
g 'l3
I~" p
a!118
~~~ ~ (2
!i!~~
:Ji~
~ 8 ~
~;~
I
I
n
o "'CI
~~~ .
;I-f~
C"'Z
no>
5;Jg~
Z
~
i
6
i I
I
~
!
! ~
e
I
x
~
I · ~ : ;;;;; nJJ
,,~
g '=a
S~i P
~~B x
";;'ll;;l~
~1lJIi n
b~ ~ ~
.:. ii ~
~; "
.11 ~" :
: li ~
i; ~
11:0""""""" ~ ..0
"""""""" r \ 0 '
'0 ~
# (
) /' //./91'
~ ~
:!1!!!
~~ "
mE "
~
l !R
;Lir- ____
OtO!lifll'l ~"..
X
~. ..
----
6
i
ii
~
!
!
I
I
I Sl1Y1S ~ 3:)~ tl3lIYHI. 03S0cf(>>jd I
Sl1Y1S vl S31:l1H3A. 1Y0H3ft1'llXl 03S0cf(>>jd
X IO"Ot ""rs 1I1t'66t Y3H't' "lW10l
".:I"S 69l'll 3:11:1.:IO
".:I"S 6Q!;;'v9L :3Sf\()IQI't'lIl 03S0dmld
"..:I"S O~L 'gzz 3SOOH3lIYlIl 9N11.S1X3
S3H:)v 16"'ZZ ".:I"S Oll'll66 Y3H't' "lW10l
S3lDV 9l.'9 ".:I"S O!ll;'t6Z J.J.l:l3cIOHd 3:lN3IIlIlY1
S3H:)V ~L"Il1 ".:I"S 09I:'5."0l J.J.H3dO&I n1Y1Ul3dClS
. V~Ya lUS I
-
.lJ..W
L
\1l^J
n "'0
Oz;ll:l
Z m
cnOr-
~"""f
c:....z
nO>
""";ll:I;ll:I
5 -<
z
S1l:13d
300
x
- 3.1:1
':It OZ1"9C:l:
x
x
-I
1
;,iT>
,"-;t,,,,"I;
~~o
x
~
~
"
I
~,
\If\
~~~
=-
~i -
, x X X x~ I
\ I
~
x
x
X
1JJ1ltllI..........."..
...\:
~ ~
~- 1_~~~
\~-~~~<
(
.L
2 : I I
51
"' w
l 8 B B
1
x I
fAn
rn
Z
~ I \ r
\ \
I
~
<) x
-
'U .. _....
(J.D.I.)
~ ~--..."""'I
- .. r .
lI1Y:JS :J1HdYlID
HUDN
81
~S-dSJI
-- p;;;;
(0-000tr6 -
-~
--
HUlON_
8QI a~~ I
"'0",;:10,
""....-
.... z",(/)
lQ ~1!O:r
iil >0-).-
(i z:i!~
~ >r-
;'ijrn
-
1
{V
./ r:
1-/:
~ :.:
11 i 'D
fl
.~~. .~r'
_DD i
" .
, .
\
\
\
I
II
.. -..... I
..,......., .. '""'i
1 .n.-r ..
..
ll'Ir.lS :JIIIdVlI:l
HllDl
IB
n -a
~~~
~-1~
c...~
no
::!;lQ;lQ
o <
Z
!
I
I
e
a
A..U11:)'v'::/ ),,83:)080 NIVV'J
15 [~O'6LS - lNltidlOO..:j
HlflOS 133lli'5 HiS
~).. .D
DO~. .DO
D_ .
. . .
../ 01 1 0 o' 0
ON3
(.001-.1 :nw:lS)
NV1d J.33RLS lpS
8-:>3S
UlVlS Y-:>3S
ON3
8 NOI.L:l3S
V NOIl:l3S
UJ\f1S
~
OliO!! -"0 ]NIl!!3.1N]:J
rtH38 -"0 dOL
I
J
S33HL J'l 3J"aI O'l.ll.SP3
"rf ~l
-
-
...:..
g 13
bi?;; P
~~PQ8
"Ilg iii 7l
;~~ i;l ~
t_e ;oJ ~
li:~" ....
gAA _
~~ 2
~! ~
~il~~
tI~ ~
fi ~
lllr-.. SIGIl
IIlIlON llNDIOlI1
n:IO)JcI 11VM N33DS ;y MaS ~SONV1
.. c;.:=........... .............. ...... ............. .... ........... ........ -... __
---
. c;.=...................................... ............... ........ .... ..................... ........_
.....-
--
-
--
.... --
--
'"
-
-I ..._.....
-
Ii: a
! ~
8
I :
'IIl'DW_....
. UII:-.I :nw:lS)
1SY3-~ :lH1IIOO1
8 NOU:ES J.33RLS 'liS
(.lK"-.!...~)
~Iu_ :INDlOOl
V NOIJ.:)3S J.33RLS 'liS
I J
NllllaaV ~ ! !lNUSIO.
dUU$ .um:w HS.1HU "13t\mU.
~
>
;:tI
m
:c
o
c
V,)
m
3SfDWV"^ NlVW IO.1WH D1 tITIJ) 3GlJ J.NlVd -fll!! 1OI1HVl:I-
13Nd J..13ltJtQJ J.SVJ)1jd II31v"VnNl
~.(l-.n"3'.s,j
H!.lION_
;;U 5;~ I
ge ~~~il
1ft - V,)
II' 6i::c
Xl ~...>
~ z;'tD
<r-
-m
...
4.91' IMd.:ll dll
""'........
J..dlN\fJ 1VJ3l a:Hru4D1:k1
~ ll:OI aV3Hln'\Q
JfI1S 1I3llW1H iIDl
"or H 3avlf)
NDI1\;l^3li~l-j;riDS 0
EO-OOot6
--
L -:>35
.
ARTICLE V
Future Development Phases; Reimbursement for Redeveloper's Costs
Section 5.1. Future Development Phases. The Redeveloper and Authority contemplate
that the Minimum Improvements may be the first phase of a multi-phased business campus
development by Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property and surrounding properties and on
the North Annex Property. Such overall development is shown on the Site Plan attached hereto.
In order to accommodate such future development the Redeveloper is constructing certain public
improvements in conjunction with the development of the Miillmum Improvements. Some of
those public improvements are necessary to facilitate future phases of development by the
Redeveloper.. The Authority and the Redeveloper acknowledge that market conditions and other
factors will influence whether such additional development will occur. Therefore, the
Redeveloper does not covenant that it will undertake such additional development.
.
The Authority believes that the additional development shown on the Site Plan will
advance the goals and objectives of the Authority and the City related to the development and
redevelopment of the Project Area. Among those goals and objectives are facilitating a planned
and orderly redevelopment of such areas and the redevelopment of certain parcels of property
that are currently underutilized by their present owners. Those parcels of property are located
dircctly to the west and north of the Redevelopment Property, are described on Schedule A to
this Agreement, and are referred to in this Agreement as the "Acquisition Parcels". In order to
encourage, assist and induce the Redeveloper to continue with the development of the proposed
business campus the Authority is willing, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this
Agrcement, to reimburse the Redeveloper for certain of the costs that it may incur in connection
with such development.
.
Section 5.2. Tax Increment Financing. MilIDesota Statutes, section 469.174-469.179
(the "Tax Increment Act") authorizes the Authority and the City to create tax increment districts
within its projects and to use tax increment to pay the public redevelopment costs of such
projects to accomplish the goals and objectives sought to be accomplished within such projects.
The Authority believes, but does not wammt, that all or a portion of the property contemplated to
be included within the Redeveloper's proposed overall development may qualify as a
"rcdevelopment district" within the meaning of the Tax Increment Act. The Authority intends
that any reimbursement to the Redeveloper as contemplated in this Article V will be made solely
using a portion of the tax increment generated from a tax increment district encompassing the
Redevelopment Property and surrounding properties. The Authority and the Redeveloper each
agree that it will, within a reasonable time after the date of this Agreement, make its own
inquilies and investigations as to whether a redevelopment district can be qualified under the Tax
Increment Act and work together to implement the process of fonning such a district. The Tax
Increment Act requires that prior to the creation of a tax increment district certain notifications
be given of the proposed action and that the City Council of the City holds a public hearing to
receive public comment on the matter. Therefore, the Authority can not and does not agree that
it will create such a tax increment district and the Redeveloper agrees that the creation of such a
tax increment district shall be in the sole discretion of the Authority and the City following
consideration of all evidence and conm1ents on the proposed action. [f the tax increment district
17
is not created, neither the Authority or City will havc any obligation to the Redeveloper on .
account thereof, anu such failure will not affect tbe Redeveloper's other obligations under this
Ag,JTccm en t.
Section 5.3. Reimbursement of Public Redevelopment Costs. (a) The Authority will
consider reimbmsing the Redeveloper for certain transportation-related public improvements
incurred in connection with the Redeveloper's plmmed overall business campus development.
A Iso, the Authority acknowledges that a portion of the cost of acquiring the Acquisition Parcels,
the cost of demolishing the improvements currently located on the Acquisition Parcels, and
llcmolition costs assQciated with the redevelopment of the North Annex Property constitute
extraordinary costs of development that would not be required if the development were to occur
on Lind not occupied by improvements. Therefore, the Authority will consider reimbursing the
Redeveloper for costs of acquisition and demolition of the Acquisition Parcels in excess of thc
fair market value of the tmId only and the cost of demolishing the improvements on the North
Annex Property. Fair market value of the land comprising the Acquisition Parcels will be
llctennincd pursuant to a process agreed upon by the Authority mId the Redeveloper.
(b) The only source of femus that the Authority will consider using to make the
reimbursements described in this l\rticle is a portion of the tax increment received fro111 the
Redeveloper's development on the Redevelopment Property. Any reimbursement will be a
revenue obligation only. and not a general obtigation of the Authority or the City, to be made
only using t;LX increment after it has been received by the Authority. The Authority intends, in
;:my event, to withhold fro111 the tax increment that may be uscd for reimbursements ten percent ..
( lOo;)) ofthe tax increment received in each year to be useu for its own purposes. Also, the only -
tax increment that will be deemed available to he used for reimbursement shall be the tax
increment generated with respect to dcvdopment lmdertaken by the Redeveloper on the
Redevelopment Property that is received dt1ring the scven (7) year period commencing in the
first year in which the Authority receives tax increment b:om thc tax increment district that may
he created pursuant to Section 5.2.
(c) It is intended that any reimbursement for public redevelopment costs as discussed
in this Article V wilt be subject to satisfaction ol"a11 of the folJowing conditions precedent:
(i) The Authority and City having been legally able to and having created 3.
tax increment financing district as dlscussed in Section 5.2 and the
Authority being legally authorized to spend tax increment to make
reimhursements fl.x pub lic redevelopment costs agreed to by the Authority
~U1d the Reueveloper.
(ii) The Redeveloper having acquired at leaiit one of the Acquisition Parcels
and having llemolisbed the improvements located on the parcel acquired.
(iii)
The Redeveloper having constructed new improvements consistent \\lith
its husiness campus development as shown on the Site Plan and consistent
with applicable zoning, which new improvements have a value for real
.
IS
.
property tax purposes that equals or exceeds the value for property tax
purposes of the improvements demolished on the Acquisition Parcels.
(iv)
The Authority and Redeveloper having negotiated and executed an
amendment to this Agreement or a new agreement providing terms that
the Authority and the Redeveloper, each in its sole discretion, frnd
acceptable concerning the amount, including any rate of interest that may
be agreed to by the Authority and the Redeveloper, and terms of the
Authority's reimbursement obligations, the Redeveloper's constmction
convenants, wage and job goals, and such other matters as the Authority
and the Redeveloper agree are appropriate.
Section 5.4. Authority's Costs. All costs incurred by the Authority in connection with
the implementation of the provisions oftrus Article V, including, without limitation, the costs of
investigating and creating the tax increment district discussed in Section 5.2, the costs of
reviewing and analyzing Redeveloper's development proposals, and the costs of negotiating and
preparing the agreement or agreements referred to in Section 5.3(c)(iv), and all costs related to
the foregoing shall be paid by the Redeveloper upon demand by the Authority, subject to the pre-
approval requirement in Section 3.2(b) and notwithstanding Section 3.2(d).
.
.
19
1\ ilOlt.:lnli.!.5NO::J "'." - .- ..- \" u. '.",
11~ J..,ON :r;om',;.eln t ~;,>ffiaJLJ.cw
,: "::\
~. ,~iWh~~, .~,., I ~ ,~~j ~_ ~fiJ~qdJ
=-=-,,-"""",,=...:;=-:r..~~=-':::---=----^''':; _,~c....::..........-' "~.'---~-~'~-
Klf10~ 1nN!^V ~~1loIl Lm\~lj \~~\!i _. \
NOO:.\({ Nlt:t1-LL1l9~ 1 \\ n;'\, u
r.-==_"- -,^ -=="
\
\\
\,\,\
~
~
~
g
l;
o
:L
ACQUISITION PARCELS
G
I
[]
c
'..
i
i [J
~
,<--;---4Jr"1iI=
(/ !
, ( ~
1\ :
I i
I' ~ i
I "
II ~
'"
[j
I
o
""'
J.:
U"l
0:::1
.,.10
l-'S
.,~ ~
Uo
-<
>~
ff)
z :i:o
9, 2 ~
}--- . 0
B t>>'z.
0-
Z -< g
o os
U a:: en
L)
Z
!-
tfl
X
!-<..\
~
,.
~
he
(](j
;;:~
l-,...
U> ""
XX
iJ..J \o:-H
no
L
._---------_.._-~.......__.-'=--"~
.
All.I1.n1Ufl'll'
.
m...n-mlJ.lI.l[D'a~
PELSTRING CAPITAL CORPORATION
] 2()D OshlJrr1c Road ,.!!I:, hidlt'v. I'v] N )5.n."'
March 8, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Hopkins
] 0 I 0 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Re: SuperValu ExpansionIRedevelopment
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
.
INTRODUCTION
In Octoher 1998, the Hopkins City Coune il established Redevelopment Ta x
Increment Financing District #2~] 1 encompassing the property owned by
SupcrValu and surrounding, adjacent redevelopment properties.
As reviewed at meetings with City and SuperValu staff and at the public
hearing, this TIF District was created to assist SuperValu and the City in
encouraging the following redevelopment activities:
1. To encourage the "redevelopment" of the North Annex into an
alternate, morc "upscale" use.
2. To provide the opportunity for future redevelopment of the
SuperValu "campus" as outlined in preliminary concept plans.
3. To provide funding to assist re-alignment Ofro8dwAYS nno Pllhlic
utilities, consistent with the redt:velopment activities.
The impetus for the establishment of the new TfF District was SuperValu's
purchase of Hcnnipen County property and the construction of the new
550,000 square foot warehouse. This project is now complete and
. SuperValu is considering expansion of its existing perishahle warehouse.
l(d2~ 7')2-4227 "ill. ~OO-()-t2-()25~.~I"I{l/21 7'12--'l2Y1 Fa,~...'t.' pl'il.,trmgt"'l':mhllllh..lIl'1
.
This f;Xpullsion will require the acquisition and redevelopment of the
adjacent CETOM & Associates property.
This proposed projcct was contemplated in the original TI F plan, approved
on October 6\ 1998. SuperVa1.u.is seeking TIF assistance from the City
consistent with the TIF plan.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SuperValLl's existing perishable warehouse was built on "leased" land (also
from CFTOM) and is adjacent to the COImtry Cluh warehouse site of
approximately 6.5 acres. The COlnpany is proposing to exercise an option to
purchase the land under the existing facility and acquire the adjacent
Country Club warehouse property to expand its perishable warehouse.
SupcrValu has been negotiating with the owner of the Country Club
warehouse for over six months in an ;:'lttempt to reacn agreement. In order tCl
minimize the seller's income tax considerations., the current offer is to
"trade" a SupcrValu leasl;d facility in Fargo, ND for the land/lease on the
e\isting perishable warehouse and the Country Club warehouse site.
.
It is clear that the ('os1 of the accJuisition and redevelopment far exceed" thf~
value oi'thc site to be devclopcJ. Supc[VaJu is not requesting a subsidy that
\-\.\HJld reduce the iE1.nd/development value to "helm,v market" rates. The TIP
ftIss.G.slance would only reduce the cost of the acquisitioll. demolition and
.,';j"rl;f:-.,;~'1<' ;ii}'!(I.nv'{)'1{'.?i?~p'r.-'rp,'.\" 'in ,'1!f:1 ffU1lUP'i./"'I:;' .,Uif,T;Ual [/'"/1. ~,g'EP('fi.;,. !'!'O",J{*'~',my "IH/U,{'" .f,?<I,il./>
."..J L ..L -~ I, J ",q" ~ ~ ) '.,- ..". ~'l..- ~ J~. L':" U 1:.-,,' l-:'t.. [l. ~,'';.:J 00.:"- !.:.-t~. .~';. .......~, ~--;L .~'" ;1 I! I, fC... J UlJ. 'a4:1!. If ikiL r/ ;I 1& ~g,....... Iii'J [I rr~ llJ
land, as {J R'GC!wt, dnre!opable site (estimated at $3. OO/sf) , In essence, the
I ,IF assistance would help comrensate SuperValu for the "excess" costs of
1, .
toe transadwn.
1 he CUlTent perisnahle vvarchousc is 226,000 s.f. SuperValu is considering
nearly doubling the size of lts existing rcrishahlc vvarchnusc by adding lip to
] (,(),OOO s. f (the Fino] size of the expansion has not yet been determined).
PRQ~~I ESTlM.AIE"S .::\N:JtIlfJlEj2UEST
C1URRiEI\!T TAX CAPACWTV:
$51,000 - based upon only the
identified redevelopment site in the
TT F district.
.
.
.
.
f'lfTURE TAX CAPACITY:
$423,000 -as of January 1> 2001
(taxes payable 2(02). This represents
a project increase in market valuation
of$12,440,OOO (80% of construction
estimates - based upon 160,000 s. f.
expansion).
PROJECTED INCREMENT:
$ 512,000 annually, beginning with
taxes payahle in 2002, after full
increase in the market valuation.
FUNOEIl COSTS:
Excess Acquisition $3,065,000
Demolition $ 250,000
OfT site Improvements $ 250,000
Total $3,615,000
(see attachmenth:;chedule # 1)
TIF REQUEST:
Pay-as-you-go funding, for 13 years
of increment (no risk to the city).
Generates a "present value" ofTIF
assistance (at an R.O% discount rate)
of $ 3,615,000.
(see attachment/schedule #2)
SUMMARY
We arc prepared to provide an overview of the project, and a more
detailed history of the economic impact of the SupcrValu facilities and
employment in Hopkins.
This requcst is consistent with thc original intcnt of the TIF plan and ollr
discuss ions with City staff and consultants over the past two years. in
consideration of our request, it is impm1ant to recognize the following:
1. The request for assistance is only to reduce the acquisition and
redevelopment costs to a level cOlnparablc to the market value of
developable land.
")
SuperValu has proceeded in good faith to determine the opportunity to
develop this site, knowing that the property was included ill the TIF
district and thst this project was identified in the original TfF
redevelopment plan.
.
3. lhe proposal, as structured, is tiJr pay'''as-you-go assistance and only
utilizes the increment generated from the development site. It does not
contemplate uti I izing the increment currently being generated by the'
main warehollse. This preserves the ability to utilize the warehouse
increment for the North Annex.
Your consideration of this information is appreciated.
On Behalf of SuperValu,
PEl ,STRING C APIT AL CORPORATION
Patrick 'IN. Pclstring,
Pres idcnt
Cf':: Steve i\Aielke
Jim Kerrigan
Sid Inman
Bob Deike
.
.
.... ~
it] 8
l2~:;)
00 ..J
w.....lN <(
ZW - :>
_:>:1: C!:
X:wO W
0..00:: D..
UJOw< ::l
0::I:0::2 (/)
....z
w<(
8~
i-::Jti.j
omw
-1-<
~ffio
~:eG
Ow::::)
u..0::0
~~>;-
--r./)
~~
<
~
I-
Z
..W
""'::E
!:2WJii
IX: Y.I I- . .
~~ffi~~
-0<1-
~ LL u..o U) b
_0 Ww
""'wwD::..,
2 I-WO
O~<I-o::
Ot-O~!l.
888
~~~
ociofi
00011)
N C'o4 co
IJn~-
W
eI)~
xu..
~~
w8
.....1M
w.,.
W~@
::;)00
.....I-Z
<C(0::c!
;>1.\...]
;;gC!>-
OZW
-t=::J
1-(1).....1
0_<
~~>
2:.0
~WZ
1-~:5
':t:O
ZOw
OO::D..
-:;::)0
t::Q......I
00W
5zi!i
g~o
<C(.. ..
O(l)CI)
_wen
-ww
~ ..J ..J
888
~Od
o
II)
N
m
I-
Z
W
::J:
w
:>
o
a::
~ w
:::: :z
% 0
o i=
i= ffi
(.) t-
=> X
a::CI)IJJ
1-%>-
(1)01-
% -~-
(l)01-...l
I-O%j::
:z!!:!~;:)
w....)('
::J: ....... u.'l:i
!$!:tl>~
oa::!::w
a::1-:::.!w
0.. (/) I- >.
::J:';:)o::
-'-fioc(
ow wI-
::i~I-z:
ml-~<
~ (,/) ;;>,,(1)
8
ci
0J
:z
o
i=
o
w
a::
a::
o
o
..J
o
CI)
o
o
ci
8
g
N
:z
o
t=
:J
o
::!
W
Q
C!>
z
9
:5
m
8118
cil~
I~
II
II
C)
:z
0::
<
o
U'.l
o
z
j
o
:z
<
C>
z
5
~
(!)
W
I-
(f.i
ATTACHMENT/SCHEDULE 1
..J
~
o
....
m
::;,)
U)
8
d
>-
u
z
w
C>
z
i=
z
o
o
g
ci
g
o
~
z
o
i=
:!
I-
U'.l
z
i
o
<(
8
~
ci
N
tJ'J
W
o
so:
a::
LIJ
(/)
...l
<
Z
o
U:i
f3
u..
u..
o
a::
0..
8
ci
g
ui
'II""
Ill)
M
..J
~
o
?-
m
;::)
tJ'J
8
ci
818
" .
0'8
I~
ll~
o
Cl
::>
o
>-
U'.l
<I(
>-
<
0..
W
UJ
Z
W
CI..
><
W
?-
m
w
IX
W
I-
l;
~
Z
::::t
o
u
m
25
I-
W
g
::::t
m
LL
j::
..J
<(
I-
o
......
I-
o
W
...,
o
IX
wo..
:1:W
I-::J:
wI-
<0
0'2
w::I
1Xu..
0::0
::II-
000
ZC
-z
Wo
mm
O...l
........l
ow
wUJ
"""0
<I-
~I-
Yo
I-W
z~
<w
1-1-
00
Zzw
W(J)O
O::wz
<0<
~oti
~~-
,,-~
.....0<
"
888~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I
11111!dciclDOD~~~~~gg~~~~~;;~~~~~g~g~~~.~~.~~~~~~~
I --------~~~~~~p~~~~-~p~p~~~~~~-~-~II~
II II ;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~;~;;~~; l-
I II MMMmMmMMMMM~~M~~fflMmmMMMMMMMmmfflfflfflfflm I
I, II NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
, II I'"
II I'
II I
I ,
II II I
, II
I'll 1"IDDDDDD~h"'h~"'h"''''h''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''h~''''''hhhh''''''h''''''''' m
ooooeo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
II~ Illdddddd~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
'I ~ ~ ~ ~ . - ~ ~ - - - - - - - . .:tllt . . . - - - - - . _it -~ _I. - ~
m~~~~~mm~mmmm~ mmmm~~~~~m~mm~~~~~~ ffl
III ~~ NN.N---------_~_.___._.___.__.____I~
I ,I
I~ 11!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~!!!!!!!!!!!115
, "'''''''''''''~'''~''''''h''''''''''''''''''''''''~~~mh'''hh''''''''''''hhh ~
,~ II ~~~~~~~~~,~"""'~,- --~""ii"" ~
E II ~~mm~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~m~~~~~~~J JII ~
I II .....INNN....NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN'" ~NNN ''''
I II 00-
I II
II II I
~5~~il!!!IIIII!!!!!!!!!!!IIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
It~~lt ~--~-----~---~-~--~p~~~p~~~~~ppp~~..~~~1
II ~ II I
II II I
~ .~88g88i8S8888888888..g8888g8888.8gg8g~g~~!
l'I!li~d~~~ll~lllllllllll~~ll(((ll((l.l~l~~~l~~~
~II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~:~NNJ=~~====I
I ~ll MMMMmMfflfflMfflfflMMmM~MMMMMMmfflMM~~~RRM~~mm
It IoC I
II i:!! II
I II
~ '8188888888888888888888888888888888881888
1l!~lllttltltllllllllllllllllllllltllltlttllll
II~ II~~~~P~~~~~~--~~~~~~~P~~~-~-~._-~~P~~~.~P I
~1I~m~~m~~~mm~~~~~~IDID~~~~~m~~~m~~m~M~~~~m~m
" II
I II
I II
I II
I '~~~~~..~8888888i888ggggggg8gg88gg8888g~~
Im~llllll~~~~~~~l~~(~~~~~~~~l((~~~lllll~~~~~1
I ~ ~ II - - - - .... "" .... foil "" "" ..... .... ... m ... ... '" ... ~ ~ ... m M .... .... ... "" !'l M I"l l'\ M M M 1ft tfI M M M !!i
"i;IlM~m~",,~;~;;;~;~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;;;;~~~11
I' 9- II
I II
m N i
. .
ft U 1
N ~ m ~
"00 ~~ O~~NN~~ ~~~~M~~~~~~OO~~NNM~~~W~~~~~W~M
l<ci~~8ooooooo~ooeoggsccco~r~~-~~~PPP~p~prrp=
~~H~~~~~~~2~2~~~2~NN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=S
e a.C =1-
" : =
_""_"_=~~~__,__'"___~_,_ .~"___",,,,~b,,~_
I ""~
~Slel
~nu
Iii
e
ATTACHMENT/SCHEDULE 2
1~111~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
"t IlIO~OOOO~~~ll'~~llliilll'lll~{il~'~il~lii~I'!
II ~~;~-2N~IMN..~_22~~~.S~~~~~-O~~O~~ ~
~ II ;l.; ~ on ~ = -_1t ._..._~_~_:!!t :;.lq l:\:a: as. ~.lll_lt 8_ ~l!:l_::l_;_ ~_I :;l. ~ ~- ~ lQ. ;_11 ..
Il~ tl ______NNNMNMNNNNMMM~~~~~~MMMM M
03 03 00 VRI 07:51 fAX 812 932 2620
Real FBtute/tlSG
\{;)O()2
.-
e
, ,
'.
I
.....\
?
~
i
~~~~';:f, fI:II,i4r:1:i1--~ I*.J --- I
",,,,,,,__IIw:l-'tl'_,,~ .
~1~.,;.,j."'I~ ......t"IlI!IOIl
SUJOCIJU\~f1.]JTldJ : _I
......... 'us >&J:>~t.2 I I \ I
{t(SS 'Nl"l 'g..jl'idOH I ~I;i
IU.1'iOS iIfN10I y ~SlilJ;Df ;;1\ ~ m I
NOI~3~ NM3HHloNII!!" l1 ~\t ~'l
.... ,If If' i t..
NOU.Y"ltllSNO::J I
1I~ iON
~ ~~'f~W~ -_....1
~
t
I
i I
~
_~i I HI
~ I '!
Il
~
e
.
i
I
I
I
'1-. I \
!:o
I
r;;
;1
! I
l- I
Z <( I
w u.J
~ ""'-
<(
~ us
~ ..,.,s
~ 0<
> 6~
I u.I
, 0 lJI!D1
I Cl 00
! LU W L.l.i
\ VI UI '"
o 00
I 0., C5 0
o "'f
ex:: '"
. 0.. 00
I
.
TENTATIVE SUPERVALU PERISHABLE WAREHOUSE
EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF HOPKINS
Revised 2/24/00
FEBRUARY 2000
February 8
MARCH
.
March 14
March '15
March 24
March 28
.
. Authorize, preparation of traffic study and appraisal process
(402 Sixth) & development agreement
· SuperValu/neighborhood meeting
e Initial work session with City Council
{> Follow-up meeting with neighborhood
. Prepare development agreement
t.l Follow-up work session with City Council
e Decision on eminent domain jf pursued
" Letter to property owner of 402 Sixth Street re: development
agreement
w property notice to newspaper re: sale of property (if eminent
domain pursued)
~ Results of traffic & noise study provided to City
!!I CUP, height variance, vacation, platting information due to City
oj) Zoning & Planning concept review
SuperValu Expansion Project - Page 2
APRIL
J-\pril 4
April 25
MAY
May 2
iV/ay 16
May 17
jimlO 1130
.
e
Follow up neighborhood and City Council meeting as required
@ City Council action-development agreement, eminent domain
resolution, public hearing sale of property (if eminent domain
process is required)
., Action by Z & P Commission on CUP, variance, vacation
l') Action by City Council on Z & P actions of 4/25
.
G Council action on CUP agreement
o Letter from H RA to owner of 402 Sixth Street re: offer to
purchase if condemnation resolution approved
.
.
.
.
Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc.
7200 France Avenue South, Suite 338
Edina, l\I1N 55435
(612) 897-1814, {800} 544-5311
To: The City of Hopkins
Attention. Mr. Jim Kerrigan
Director of Planning & Economic Development
March 1, 2000
From: Rick. Van Dueren, PhD, P.E
BY FACSIMILE
Re: Preliminary Review ofSUPERVALU Perishable Products warehouse yard operations noise sources.
Background
Midwest Acoustics was retained by the City of Hopkins (the City) to work with the City and SUPERV ALU \vith regard to
some noise questions relevant to a proposed SUPERV ALU perishable foods wareh.ouse expansion in Hopkins. The noise
study project was set up in two phases, the first of which was a Preliminary Review designed to provide a preliminary
estimate of the noise at the closest residence due to potential worst nighttime hour yard operations at SUPER VAL U. The
second phase would be determined in part by the indications of the noise level estimates of phase 1 and by other factors
deemed important by the City and SUPER V ALU. Phase 2 would be initiated after the City and SUPERV ALU evaluate this
Preliminary Review report.
The estunated noise levels are strictly estimates and are based on measured data from other projects. We consider these
esttmates to be good ones and it must he borne in mind that that is all they are: estimates, they are not true.
Worst~Hou.r Scenario
The first step in the preliminary analysis of the yard operations noise of the proposed SUPERV ALU Perishable Foods
expansion, was to outline a suggested 10 p.m to 7 a.ill. wOrst~hoUI scenario. SUPERVALU has reviewed the proposed
scenario from the 2/16/00 memorandum and has provided us with the following numbers for the worst nighttime hour afyard
operations.-
(0 40 reefers parked and opeidting in the NEW perishable area.
" 21 reefers parked and opemting in the EXISTING perishable area.
" 24 loaded truck deliveries OUT, all from the NEW area
.. 20 loaded truck deliveries IN, all to the NEW area
I;> 20 tractors moving in the yard. half with traIlers, half tractor only). all in the NEW area
.. 20 shuttles round trip, one way loaded, other way no trailer, 10 to }.rEW ar~, 10 to EXISTING area, half with an empty
trailer, half with a loaded reefer trailer.
SUPER V ALU also reviewed and accepted the following for the preliminary review:
0> Unloaded tractor (no traIler) noise levels are the same as for a loaded truck with no reefer.
<> A yard speed of 10 mph was appropriate (I5 feet/second, 6.7 seconds to travel 100 feet).
D A turnaround time of 2 minutes at the dock at low idle was appropriate for all delIVeries OUC receiving trips in, and for
each shuttle round trip.
The four sketches attac.hed to the 2/16/00 memorandum were also reviewed by SUPERVALU and accepted as a reasonable
basis/slarting point for the pre1iminaIy revtew_
Pagc 2. Mcmorandum to The City of Hopkins from l'vtidwest Acoustics, March 1, 2000
.
The noise level criteria are referred to as the Standards and are given in lhe Hopkins noise ordinance and in the Minnesota
Noise Standards. The nighttime hours were assumed, during which the Standards are the most rigorous and the
SUPER V ALU yard activity the greatest. The nighttime Standards arc given in tcnns of noise levels not to be exceeded: the
L 1 0 limit of 55 dBA and the LSO limit of 50 dBA. The L 10 is the A wt noise level exceeded for ten percent of a one hour
period (6 minutes) and the LSO is the Awt noise level exceeded for fifty percent of a one hour period (30 minutes)
Findings of the Preliminary Review
The analysis was performed for a receiver point fOllI feet above grade at the home located on the northwest comer of 7ill Ave.
So. and 5th Street So. Noise levels at a point twelve feet above grade (approximately at the location of a second story window)
would be 1 dBA to 2 dBA higher than four feet for the case of a full barrier from the guard house to the dry grocery barrier.
if the barrier is not extended all the way to the guard house. the difference between the four foot and twelve foot noise k'Vels
would be less than I dBA.
NOise leve! data for trucks and reefers was derived from daD measured at other sites. It was assumed that a shuttle tractor
had the same noise level as an aver-the-road t-ractor
For the barrier as originally proposed plus an extended 14 jt to J 5 fi high barrier fo the guard house, wefinJ'
A low, but finite probability of exceeding the Standards due to truck movement in the yard.
e; A VCIY hIgh probability of exceeding the nighttime LSO levcl of '50 dBA and the UD level of 55 dBA due to operation of
par!(cd reefers (a steady noise level of approximately 60 dBA was estimated).
Fur the barrier cu' ori~inally proposed but NO extended barrier 10 the guard house, we find:
" A high probability of exceeding the Standards due to truck movement in the yard.
A very high probability of exceeding the nighttime LSO level of 50 dBA and the L 10 level of 55 dBA due to operation of
:~arkcd reefers (a steady noise level of approximately M dBA was estimated)
.
The primary concern would be the noise (rom purked and OlJeratmR reefers. For the case of an extended barrier from the
guard house to the dry gnx;ery ba..rrier already present, the additiottal noise reduction needed for the steady noise from reefers
to be less u'1an the nighttime L50 requirement of 50 dBA would be on the order of 10 dBA to 15 dBA. This is a lot of
i'.ci.di.tiorrd noise reduction.
We expect that, when SUPERV ALU looks back after having resolved the noise issues hcre. it will have taken substantial
effo\i l'md crc..3tivivj to get the job done.
Ph,ase 2 - Potemial Content.
The tasks of Ph~se 2 will depend on the path SUPER V ALU deCides to take regarding resolution of this potential noise issue
and how important, or not, it is to have noise level esttmates and/or data that go beyond the "prelinunary' level.
The estimates for the prelimimry review .vere based on truck and reefer data from facilities other than SUPERV ALU. It may
((lake ;J. difference with certain aspects of the analYSIS to use IlOlse data taken from actual SUPERV ALU verudes/trailers: an
example would be shuttle nOIse which was assumed 10 be equal to that of an over.tl~e-road tractor Some details, such as the
height of a potential barrier extending all the way to the guard house, remain {Q be finalized There is a question about the
potential impact of changing the location of the ramp for shunk traffic between the dry grocery and the perishable
vI'arehouses -- litis impact will be affected by the actual noise levels of !.he shunk vehicles. [n addition. measurement of the
present-dav noise levels in the nearby residential area may be appropriate In order to gain perspective.
The benefit of mCJsuring the noise levels of the SUPER V ALU yard operations noise sources would be a higher degree of
confidence in predictions based on these dam - both for this proposed faCllity and others in other areas of the country.
.
Page 3, Memorandum to The City of Hopkins from Midwest Acoustics, March 1, 2000
. Recommended Phase 2 Steps:
A. Perform supporting noise measurements.
1. Noise levels of SUPERV ALU reefers (measured at a known rnstIDlcc from a known number of operating reefers),
2. Noise levels of SUPER V ALU tractor-trailers, tractors, and shuttles (measured on a "track." setup for a known
operating gear and rpm).
3. Present-day environmental noise levels at the home(s) of concern.
B. Refine estimated noise levels using measured noise data and posSibly modified barrier data and movement patterns.
C Provide support as needed for other steps required to resolve the noise concerns with regard to this facility. This &upport
might include assistance with:
1. Alternative noise reduction design approaches,
2. Specification of community noise measurement sites, times and procedures,
3. Evaluation of community noise data,
4. Preparntion of materials (including noise level or noise reduction calculations) for formal presentations.
Approximate costs for Phase 2:
Note: The costs for any of the steps will be dependent in part on the desired outcome of SUPERV ALU. If, for example,
really good noise data for the yard sources is desired as opposed to rough data, the time and costs would of course be higher
for the really good data. The same would apply to noise level predictions Certain simplifying assumptions have been made
to prepare reasonable models for the preliminary review - the details of these mayor may not be appropriate for more refined
uses of the predictions.
A. L The reefer noise levels can be measured at the present-day perishable facility. Care should be exercised to ensure that
the contribution of other sources such as idling tractors, other parked but more distant reefers, etc. do not contaminate the
data and that an accurate count of contributing reefers is obtained. A cost range of $250 to $500 would be expected; this
would depend on how easy it is to get an unC()ntaminated situation.
.
A.2. This would involve at least one meeting, setting up a suitable track, coordinating the vehicles, recording the data, and
reducing the data. A cost range of $800 to $2000 would be expected depending on how much of the preparatory work could
be done by SUPERV ALU personnel, on the availability and ease of coordinating the testing, and on the number ofvehicics
SUPERV ALU wishes to test (the number tested will affect the confidence level of the data).
A.3. This would probably be arranged by SUPERV ALU directly with Twin City Testing. The cost would be dependent on
the number of one-hom samples desired A cost range pTObably would be on the order of $1000 to $1000.
B. The estimated nOlse levels can be fairly readily refined once the final barrier heIghts and configurations are known The
main question would be whether SUPERV ALU believes that the final selections of scenarios and movement patterns is
sufficiently representative for the purposes of the nex"t stage of the process. A single repeat of the existing estimates with
refined noise level data and barner information using the same scenarios and movement patterns as modeled in the
preliminary review would cost on the order of $/000 including reporting. Modifying the barrier configuration or scenarios
to reflect "what if' questions would of course add to the cost.
C Supporting work would be perfonned on a time and materials basis, at $125 per hOUT for Dr. Van Dooren's time.
Please call with any questions. Thank you for your business.
::2/z;a:;:
Richard E. Van Doeren
PresIdent
Il-lEF:E8 y C~P.Trf':' T:~;" T TIllS PIJN.
~-P~G;r:0:.IIOl';. or r:~.P:JRT.',~ ! }-::::f'!,:~r:l
C'( i.it:: UNDD MY I,~ ~r:T ,;.::- ,"',:1'::1;:;
;;;W THAT I AM t. D:JLY r J'-:ri ,:.:::,
FH,0Ft:SSI0tl/\L f~lGl.i;::C:I~ C"'c" T,k lA\.;;:)
~:;;2~
DA TE 3/1/ dO REG. rw// 8'"..:t 3
.
Copy: Mr. Sher Azizi, Director of Project Management, PLANMARK
Mr. David Bade, Civil Engineer. PLANMARK