Loading...
Memo- Hennepin County Public Works PropertyPLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Copy: Steve Mielke, City Manager From: O~~~im Kerrigan, Planning & Economic Development Director Date: / January 7, 1997 Subject: Hennepin County Public Works Property Purpose of Memo Earlier this year, when the HRA terminated its option agreement on the Hennepin County Public Works property, there was an interest expressed in scheduling a meeting to discuss the future reuse of this site. Staff has now scheduled a discussion for the January 14 work session. The purpose of this memo is to provide some background on the City/HRA involvement with this property and to identify issues of discussion for the January 14 work session. Overview Hennepin County is now under construction on their new public works facility in Medina. They have stated their present schedule should have them in their new site in the mid to latter part of 1998. In previous discussions, staff has been told that the county will probably put the property up for safe through a sealed bid process sometime in the latter part of 1997. Recently SuperValu informed staff that they are again interested in constructing new warehouse space on this property. Attached is a letter detailing their proposal. They will be present at the work session to answer any questions by the Council concerning their proposal. Prior to the January 14 work session, staff will be meeting with representatives of Hennepin county concerning the subject property, and therefore should be able to provide a more current update at the work session. III. Primary Issues to Consider What actions have been taken by the City/HRA concerning this parcel? ~ In September 1994 City staff met with representatives of SuperValu, who expressed an interest in moving their warehouse operation north of Excelsior JKO10 i]A Boulevard to this location; however, they later notified the City that they were not interested in constructing on the subject property. ~ In January 1995 the City/HRA entered into an option agreement with Hennepin County for the purchase of the subject property. The purchase price established in this agreement was $4.5 million. The City/HRA was required to provide a $225,000 option payment. ~ Staff met with the Park Valley neighborhood to discuss various redevelopment options. Overall, the majority of people seem to be in favor of some type of office/manufacturing/industrial use. There were concerns about any increase in traffic to the south of the subject site, especially trucks. ~ In early 1995, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., completed an analysis of redevelopment concerning this property. Within their report they detailed a variety of recommendations they felt should be implemented in conjunction with any redevelopment project. o Staff was authorized to prepare arequest-for-qualifications (RFQ) to determine developer interest. Eight developers responded to the RFQ. Five developers were interviewed by the HRA. Most of these developers stated that, based on the option purchase price of $4.5 million, they would require some public subsidy. o Staff secured an appraisal of the subject property. The value as determined by this appraisal is $2.65 million. o In June 1996 the HRA terminated the option agreement with Hennepin County. Issues Concerning SuperValu Representatives of SuperValu have recently informed staff that they are again interested in constructing warehouse space on the subject property. Attached is a letter detailing the specifics of their project. It would appear SuperValu has two alternatives available for gaining control of the site. 1. Have the City/HRA attempt to negotiate another option agreement with the county and then assign it to SuperValu, based on approval of an acceptable development agreement. 2. SuperValu could get involved in the sealed bid process at such time as the county undertakes this process. The : isk with this alternative would be that SuperValu would not be the high bidder. JKOl0~"1A In considering the SuperValu proposal, the Council needs to consider the following: o The project as proposed would be for the most part warehouse space, which would create limited jobs fior the City and generate less property taxes than some of the other projects that have been discussed fior this site. o !f SuperValu cannot accommodate their future growth needs in Hopkins, they may be forced to took at relocating aft or a portion of their operation out of Hopkins. o The Park Valley neighborhood appears to have been supportive of SuperValu locating on this property. in the past they have done a good job of buffering their development from residential properties and dealing with traffic issues and concerns. Q If SuperValu constructs on the county property, there is a good possibility their property north of Excelsior Boulevard would be put up for sale. This creates certain opportunities and concerns which need to be addressed. Land Use Issues As stated previously, the property is zoned 4-2, General Industrial, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan details the majority of the site as office park, with the southern portion medium density residential. In meeting with the Park Vaffey residents, they have stated they are not supportive of residential, other than possibly single family, detached. 7'he present zoning would allow for a variety of industrial uses. Some of the uses allowed under this zoning would probably be considered less than desirable; however, it is staffs opinion that because of the potential cost and desirability of this property, it will develop with the "higher end industrial" uses. Also, the business park zoning designation that is presently being considered by the Council could be placed on this site to help ensure that this would be the case. Public Financial Assistance In discussing the future reuses for this site, the Council also needs to decide whether there is any willingness to provide any public financial assistance to help facilitate a project. Such assistance would probably be used for land write-down and possibly road and infrastructure construction. Staff has assumed that at such time as the county solicits bids for the property, developers will come to the City to ask whether assistance will be available and base their bid price on the availability of such funds. dKOl00~A Any public assistance would probably have to be provided with tax increment. As the Council is aware that each year the legislature discusses changes to this economic development tool, which if approved, could affect the City's ability to provide assistance at such time as the county property is ready for development. V. Conclusion The Council, over the next few months, needs to detail any actions they wish to undertake regarding this property. They also need to respond to the SuperValu request. Vl. Attachments o Letter from SuperValu o Summary of proposals from RFQ process ~ Primary site analysis prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, dated January 10, 1995 o Proposed business park zoning ordinance ~ Site Map JKO10'!TA supEa~ ~u PC Box ? 451 Minne2poiis, P.1ly 55-c0 612 932 4300 January 10, 1997 Mr. Jim Kerrigan, Director Planning & Economic Development City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Hennepin County Property, Hopkins, Minnesota Deaz Mr. Kerrigan: SUPERVALU appreciates this opportunity to express its interest in the above referenced property. First, I would like to provide a brief description of our operations in the City of Hopkins to help put our interest in perspective There are two primary functions within our Hopkins facilities. First are the offices of SUPERVALU's Northern Marketing region and second are the warehouse and distribution operations. The Northern Marketing region is one of seven regions within SUPERVALU's operations. The Northern region is responsible for providing services and support to our affiliated grocery retailers in the upper midwest. We provide products to our retailers from four distribution centers located in Fargo, ND, Bismarck, ND, Des Moines, IA and of course, the Hopkins distribution center. The regional office consists of approximately 300 employees. Functions within the regional office include product procurement, marketing, business development, advertising, accounting, real estate, engineering design, information services and human resources. The distribution operation in Hopkins is the largest within SUPERVALU, supporting annual sales of approximately $1.3 billion. We have approximately 700 employees involved in the warehousing and transportation functions. The volume of product handled has steadily grown over the years, and we project that growth to continue. The current distribution operations involve three different facilities in Hopkins. The main site at 101 Jefferson Avenue includes the dry grocery and frozen food product line, as well as, the fleet maintenance facility. Our perishable facility on 5th Street is where we distribute produce, meat, deli, bakery and dairy products. The facility north of Excelsior Boulevazd (previous Red Owl distribution center) is used for overflow storage of grocery products, as well as, a shipping dock for large volume products. Currently, offices for the regional staff are located in all three facilities. SUPEPVr ", ".C ., ~ .; efferson Av2nua Sc,.. Ucc<~s 1`, 553-:, Mr. Jim Kerrigan January 10, 1997 Page 2 Our primary interest in the Hennepin County site is to construct a facility to consolidate our dry grocery operations. The current buildings are too small to handle the projected volume, there are not enough dock doors to handle the inbound and outbound loads and the truck traffic is becoming very congested in and around the sites. Our plans would be to build a facility of approximately 500,000 square feet. Truck staging and parking areas would also be provided on this site. It would be our intent to acquire the entire site. The location, in proximity to our frozen food and perishable building, is very important to us. Many of our outbound loads consist of a combination of dry and perishable goods, thus we shuttle trucks between facilities to complete the loads. The farther we have to go from our existing facilities to meet our expansion needs, the less efficient our operations become. We are comfortable with the property's availability date assuming that we are under contract well in advance of that time. We estimate that the design, construction and preparation of the facility will require approximately eighteen months which suggests that the design and planning must begin before Fall, 1998. In summary, the continued success of our Hopkins distribution center requires that we consolidate our dry grocery operations into one, larger facility. Furthermore, we need to be operational in the new space within three yeazs. The Hennepin County property located within the City of Hopkins is strategically placed in relationship to our existing facilities, and its size will accommodate our expansion needs. SUPERVALU is available to meet with the City and the County to arrange a transaction that will best meet the objectives of all parties. Further, we are prepared to complete that transaction as soon as possible. Please continue to work with Lloyd Johnson and Joe DeWit on this matter. However, I am available at any time to discuss SUPERVALU's Northern Region operations and future facility plans. Again, thank you for this opportunity. Sincer Iy,I/ t/ ~..-._~ -- v John Ve ter g Vice President, Logistics Northern region SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY Name of companv: Atkinson ~ Associates Specifics of project(s) beinq~roposed: 15 percent executive office space; 20 percent office/showroom space; 50 percent employment intensive light industrial; and 15 percent office warehouse space. Total square footage of buildings--630,000: Square Buildina Footaae warehouse 133,000 office associated with warehouse 48,000 office/warehouse 146,000 office/showroom 21,000 office (multi-story) 28,000 office (3-story) 85,000 office {multi-story) 41,000 office (4-story) 166,000 Public input process being outlined: Plans to contact the neighborhood by mail. - Invite neighborhood to participate in the site design process. - Conduct two or three public meetings prior to the City conducting its public hearings. Public assistance reauested: A request is being made for public assistance on the project in the form of completing street and utility improvements, street lighting, landscaping, public amenities, and street furniture. - Also requesting park dedication fees be paid/waived and that the site be free of special assessments. - Atkinson & Associates would pay $4.5 million for the Iand,r Tax impacts: No tax impacts were calculated. Time line• Atkinson & Associates would furnish the $225,000 option payme=nt to the City by July 1, 1995. ^.'he remainder of the $4.5 million would be paid on or before February 28, 1997. Although no other time lines were indicated, it could be assumed that construction of the project would begin shortly after FFebruary 28, 1997. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS HENNEPZN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY Name of company: Hoyt Properties, Inc. ~ecifics of proiect(s) being proposed: 450,000 square feet of buildings consisting of the following. Building Square Footage multi-story office 148,000 office/showroom 108,000 office/warehouse/light industrial 194,000 Public input process being outlined: Public assistance requested: Hoyt indicates their interest in exploring the possibility of public assistance being provided for the common, public space amenities which are proposed to be part of the project. Tax impacts• Hoyt estimates a total value of approximately $25 million upon completion of the project, generating approximately $1.25 million per year in new tax revenue, Time line• Hoyt indicates they desire to have the ability to phase the development of the overall site. Hoyt does hot indicated a specific time frame for phasing. SUMMARX OF PROPOSALS HENNEPIN COUI3TY PLBLIC WORKS PROPERTY Name o£ company: Merites, Inc., Space Center Enterprises, Inc., Ellerbe Becket, McGougS Construction, C.B. Commercial Specifics of proiect(s) beinq proposed: Square Buildino Footage 3-story L office building 60,000 office/showroom buildings 278,000 warehouse buildings 364,000 Public input process being outlined: None outlined. Public assistance requested: Developer is assuming that the City will provide all streets, curbs, gutters, utilities, traffic control lights, and street lights which would be required by the development. Tax impacts• Developer has estimated that the project will generate a minimum of $1.3 million per year in property taxes. market value for the completed development is estimated at over $32.5 million. Time line• Developer is proposing a project which would be phased in over the years 1998, 1998, 2000, and 2001. Developer shows option payment being provided in 1996, with the full cost of the land being provided to the County in 1997. Other: The developer has estimated the completed project will employ over 1,000 people. Upon entering into a development agreement, the developer will reimburse the City of Hopkins $100,000 toward its investment of $225,000 in the option price. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY Name of company; MortensonJTOwle Real Estate/Setter, Leach, & Lindstrom, Inc. Specifics of project U bein4 proposed: Approximately 500,000 square feet of warehouse and production facility, with support office components. Public input process being outlined: Developer is proposing early meetings with the surrounding neighborhood and City Staff to discuss general design parameters of the project. Developer indicates these parameters will then be indicated through a PUD zoning approval process. Public assistance requested: Developer indicates the public assistance, if required, would be dependent on market conditions and whether the site is to be developed for one user or multiple users. Developer indicates at this time institutional financing is readily available for this type of project. Tax impacts: No tax impacts outlined. Time line: Developer indicates time line will be driven by the date of turnover of the site by the County. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY Name of company: Opus Corporation Specifics of proiect(s) being proposed: Option A An all-industrial concept including approximately 372,000 square feet of industrial space. Option B Retail of approximately 230,000 square feet and approximately 159,000 square feet of industrial. Option C 440,000 square feet of retail. Public input process being outlined: Opus proposes to hold numerous meetings with downtown merchants and business people, as well as the surrounding residential neighborhood to help refine the concepts which are being proposed. Public assistance requested: Option A The purchase price of the property should be established on a case-by-case basis with specific users and will be dependent upon market conditions. Option B Opus will purchase the property for $4.5 million and will not require the use of tax increment financing. Option C Opus will purchase the property for $4.5 million and additionally will pay the City of Hopkins $500,000 to be used for joint marketing programs for downtown Hopkins and this project. With Option C, as in Option B, Opus will not require tax increment financing. Tax impacts• Option A The developed property of 372,000 square feet of industrial space will have a value of approximately $15 million and will generate real estate taxes of approximately $745,000. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS, HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY ' opus Corporation - Page 2 Option B The developed property of 230,00 square feet of retail and 159,000 square feet of industrial will have a value of approximately $22 million and will generate real estate taxes of approximately $1.1 million per year. Option C The developed property of 440,000 square feet of retail will have a value of approximately $30 million and will generate real estate taxes of approximately $1.5 million per year. Time line• Option A Construction to begin in 1997 with entire site estimated to be fully constructed by the year 2000. Option B Construction to begin in spring of 1997 with entire site to be fully constructed by the year 1999. Option C Construction to begin in spring of 1997 with the project fully constructed by summer of 1998. O1G 4V.,-~ J iV .,. iu~ ..+ .w~..L~~\ r~u i a..:. ... n. .v ~`. rte. GC.. Hoisington Koegier Getup Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Kerrigan FROM: Mark Koegler DATE: January 10, 1995 SUBJECT: Hennepin County Public Works Site -Preliminary Analysis This memorandum contains a preliminary analysis of the Hennepin County Public Works site which currently comprises approximately 40 acres bounded by TH 169 on the east, 3rd Street South on the north and west, and 5th Street South on the south. This analysis was prompted by Hennepin County's decision to move the existing facility and a subsequent decision by the City of 1-lopkins to enter into an agreement with Hennepin County which essentiaIIy enables the City to explore development opportunities on the property over the next six month period. The methodology used in this analysis includes a three step approach. It reflects a decision on the part of the City to convert the site to a business park in the future. Although this decision may be construed as a "predetermined outcome", this analysis effort will identify alternative land uses should such be appropriate. The first portion of the approach examines a listing of alternative uses of the property and cites the positive and negative aspects of each. Secondly, a detailed site analysis is presented in both narrative and graphic formats in order to objectively analy2e the physical aspects of the property. Finally, this analysis highlights not only the recommendation of the future use of the property but it also suggests a design framework which should be applied as specific development proposals are formulated. Alternative Uses The Hopkins Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1989 called for the public works site to be redeveloped with offices on the northern half and attached housing on the southern half. The plan referenced the site's "visibility from and easy access to Highway 18" (now TH 169), and the fact that the property to the north is designated as a light rail transit (LRT) station site. As was mentioned previously, the initial assumption that forms the core of this analysis is that the preferred use of the property is a business park. If one were to look at the property with a blank slate, other uses that could be considered include: single-family residential, multi-family residential, r_tail, office and office wazehouse, industrial, or a mix of uses. The 1989 plan called for a mixture of residential and commercial use of the property. Land Usc / Emimnmennd ~ PlaaningJlksiyn era,,.. ,~,.....,~ ,,..,,. _ ., ., ............. Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum January 10, 1995 Page 2 During the course of upcoming meetings, Hopkins' staff is likely to be asked why this site is best suited for a business pazk rather than one of the other potential uses. The first part of providing an answer to that question involves an initial identification of factors that inherently make the site less desirable for other uses. The following observations aze related to that topic: Residential Uses: The housing stock of the City of Hopkins contains a high percentage of attached units. The City is committed to having a diversified housing supply. Consequently, ii may be suggested that the Hennepin County Public Works site is a suitable location for single- family homes which would provide additional balance to the housing supply. The site itself, however, is inherently unsuited to the construction of single-family homes. Only 20'/0 of the perimeter boundary of the site abuts asingle-family neighborhood. The vast majority of the site's perimeter abuts either commerciaUmdustrial buildings or freeway right-of-way. Access to the area as well as abutting land uses creates an environment that is not conducive to the constniction of new single-family homes. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan called for multi-family residential on the southern portion of the property. The strongest azgument against the construction of multi-family residential has both a policy and physical component. From a physical perspective, multi-family housing could be built in the identified location and could be buffered from the surrounding negative influences. The focus of such a development, however, would be internalized creating another multi-family enclave that would not bolster a sense of overall community. Another physical disadvantage is that this site will play a role in the public's perception of the City of Hopkins due to its prominent Iocation adjacent to TH 169. If housing of any form is constructed on the site, noise barriers similar to those that now exist on the east side of TH 169 would likely be constructed. Instead of potentially creating a positive image of the community as viewed from TH 169, the additional noise wall would only create another section of urban freeway canyon. From a policy perspective, Hopkins currently has a high percentage of multi- family housing oppomwities and therefore, a redevelopment pazcel of this magnitude can be used for a more appropriate purpose. Retail Uses: The Hennepin County Public Works site is lazge enough to support retail activity. The principal drawback of using the site for retail purposes is access and visibility. Although the 1989 Comprehensive Plan touted the site's location, a closer look reveals that the Comprehensive Plan may have been somewhat overly optimistic. $oth access and visibility pose concerns at the present time as well as into the near future. These concerns gene y Deus on the act that the site is detached from ec access o a major roadway and visibility is hindered by existing development and the TH 169 bridge that crosses County Road 3. These issues aze further referenced is the site analysis portion of this memorandum. O~G-OJ.~-~a0u ..u.J .u.li~.ly iwCU'LCI~ Hennepin County Public Works Si#e Analysis Memorandum January 10, 1995 Page 3 ice: :'J4 JHIV 1C1 JJ 1-4: Gi Office. OfficeJWarehouse and Industrial: For discussion purposes, these three uses have been combined because in most redevelopment that occurs today, they tend to become integrated. Appropriate industrial uses of this site would include be smaller scale, clean operations. Such uses are commonly integrated into one overall campus business park that also may feature pure office uses as well as office/warehouse and office/showroom elements. As a category of land use, this is the preferred alternative for the Public Works site due to access, visibility and adjacent land uses. The size of the Public Works site creates the opportunity to establish a business park that is attractive from the exterior as well as one having interior amenities. Resigned as a campus type of envitomnent, the development could be built is manner that creates a positive impression when viewed $om TH 1b9. As such, it wind become a signattue of the community, similaz to but not certainly of the same scale as the 8400 Tower area in the City of Bloomingwn or the Carlson Tower in the City of Minnetonka. Further evidence of the site's potential for development as a business pazk was documented during the data collection phase of the County Road 3 Corridor Study. As a part of that planning effort rernesentatives from two of the Twin Cities maior development companies reviewed sites • strong potential as a business park site. ~Yo~ ~.~,-{- f 5 t"v'(:~ _~~ Mixed Uses: There aze a variety of mixed use scenarios that could be implemented on the site. The inherent disadvantage of any mixed use combinafion relates to the identified disadvantages of the individual speciftc uses noted. For example, adding a residential component still creates both the physical and policy wncerns. A retail component still creates access and visibility concerns. Site Analysis In examining the physical characteristics of the Hennepin County Public Works site, issues can be s~unn±ari~ed in a number of categories including access, adjacent land uses, visibility, existing edge treatments, buffer areas, existing roadways, existing regulations, and possible future development of an LRT station immediately north of the property. fihe following is an overview of each of these factors. Additionally, they are depicted on the site analysis graphic: cress: At the present time, primary access to the site occurs from the north on 3rd Street South and another access connects to 5th Street South. These access points adequately meet Hennepin County's current needs since they channel the County's ttuclc traffic to one primary location while affording automobile access for employees and visitors at alternative entrances. Trunks aze prohibited from using Second Avenue South which is posted with signage. Visibili :Visibility into the Public Works site currently ranges from excellent to non-existent depending on the location of the viewer. Observations on the visibility of the site include: Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum January 10, 1995 Page 4 ^ Northbound along TH 169, visibility into the site is excellent. The roadway grade is at an elevation that is very close to the current County office building providing expansive views of the property. Because of the visibility of the site from this location, drivers have ample opportunity to exit at County Road 3 to access the property. Along 5th Street South and 3rd Street South, visibility into the site is excellent due to flat grades in the area and lower speed limits on local streets which allow drivers ample time to see the property and fmd suitable entrance locations. Along County Road 3 regardless of the direction of travel, a relatively narrow window of opportunity exists to see into the site. This window extends approximately 500 feet both east and west along County Road 3 from the center of the CR 3 and 5th Avenue North intersection. On the west side of the intersection, the view into the area is obscured by the Knox Lumber building. On the east, the site can be viewed over the top of the open storage area for the truss manufacturer but the buildings located immediately east of the storage area completely abstract the view. Approaching the site on 2nd Avenue South from the south, it is not visible until reaching a point approximately 300 feet south of the connection to 5th Street South. At this point, drivers reach the crest of the hill that rises consistently from its starting point at the intersection of 7th Street South and 2nd Avenue South Approaching the site from the north along TH 169, visibility into the site begins as non- existent and gradually improves as a driver continues to the south. The view into the property from the north (heading south) begins approximately at the point where 'fli lb9 crosses County Road 3. At this location, a driver whose destination is the Public Works site has only one opportunity to exit at 7th Street Soutb/TH 169. Unless a driver is familiar with the location, there is no view into the site from the north that would allow exiting at County Road 3 and accessing the site from the north via 5th Avenue North. Adiacent Land Uses: The nariue of the load uses surrounding the Hennepin County Public Works site is predominately commercial and industrial. Such uses include the warehouse building and the Supervalu entrance west of the site, Knox Lumber and GRC to the north, and an office building immediately southeast of the site. Additionally, the entire eastern frontage abuts TH 169 which is an intermediate arterial freeway which had a 1992 ADT of 69,000 vehicles. Approxitrtately three quarters of the southern boundary of the site abuts a residential neighborhood. Portions of the neighborhood are separated from 5th Street South by Buffer Park (appropriately named). Five residential lots have direct side lot line exposure to 5th Street South and the Public Works site. 612-835-3~..d h0lSL.aT~,N KGEGLER i29 P©b JNN 19 '95 14:23 Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum January 10, 1995 Page 5 Existin¢ Edee Treatments: The Hennepin County Public Works building is relatively open around the edges, with portions of the boundaries controlled by chain link fencing azound the storage yard areas and along the TH 169 right-of--way. Some screening occurs from opaque slats inserted into the fencing at the corner of 3rd Street South and 5th Street South. Beyond the limits of the fence slats, large deciduous shrubs provide additional screening during leaf-on conditions. Buffer Areas: The only significant buffer area that provides some mitigation from the views into the Public Works site as well as from noise generated on the site is Buffer Park which separates 5th Street South from homes located oa Valley Drive. Redevelopment of the Public Works site will tteed to consider additional buffering for the entire neighborhood area located to the south. Existin¢ Roadways: The observations noted in this memorandum focus principally on land use and physical site characteristics. They do not include an analysis by a qualified traffic engineer. Despite this fact, general comments on the roadway network aze offered. The roadway system currently serving the Public Works site appears to have adequate width to handle two full lanes of truck and automobile movement. The roads on the north and west sides of the site aze and will continue to be heavily used by Supervalu trucks in moving products between their various locations in the area. Vehicles entering the area from 5th Avenue North will continue to be periodically detained at the railroad crossing. Lip_ht Rail Transit (LRTI• The 1=iennepin County Regional Railroad Authority has retained misting railroad right-of-way north of the site for filture construction of an LRT line and station. (See Attachment A) The timing of construction of LRT is this area is unknown but can be reasonably expected to be at least 10 years away. Therefore, it becomes a future consideration in establishing redevelopment plans for the Public Works site. Conclusions and Comments Although this review of the Hennepin County Public Works site is preliminary in nature not having included traffic, market, and financial analyses, it supports a conclusion that the Public Works site should be developed as a business pazk Such a pazk would likely include office buildings, office watehouselshowroom facilities and clean, light industrial uses such as assembly operations and similar uses without outside storage requirements. The following comments pertaining to this potential use are offered for consideration: Development Pattern;. Development of a business park on the Public Works site needs to emphasize "park". The development pattern should include entrance treatments, landscaping and other features that would create an attractive environment both internally and when viewed from the surrounding roadway network. The City of Hopkins should work with the developer to ensure that the entire 40 acre parcel is designed as one project area rather than as a wllection of differing individual elements. bl -C..]J-JlOei null uvu itnr nccuccn ac~+ ~. -. ... __ __ _ , __ Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum January 10, 1995 Page 6 Building Materials and Hei¢ht: Since the Public Works site lies within a quadrant of one of Hopkins' most significant intersections, buildings need to be wnsttucted of quality materials that will both *r++n,m,~e maintenance and will be aesthetically pleasing. Buildings around the periphery of the site should be single story to relate to the scale of the surrounding land uses and taller structures could be more centralized on the property. Whine the market is not likely to support an office tower at this location, a 3 to S story oKrce building may be a realistic component of a business park project. If such a building is included in a business park redevelopment plan, it could be located northeast of the center of the site enhancing the visibility of the site when viewed prior to and on the bridge southbound oa TH 169. Existing Zg_=ing_Regulations: is order to guide the development of a business park on the Public 'Works site, it may be necessary to consider some modification of the existing Zoning Ordinance. A cursory review of the Business and Industrial classifications indicates that possibly either a new category would need to be created or a mechanism such as a conditional use permit should be required in order to control such a development. Edge Treatment: The periphery of the business park area should be attractively landscaped and building orientations within the development should consider views from adjacent streets. For example, service corridors and loading dock areas should be screened from the adjacent street system and/or oriented is a matuter that they do not face the surrounding streets. The development will need to provide a buffer for the single-family neighborhood to the south. Such a buffer can be accommodated as a green space in a variety of ways including berming, landscapvng and expanded building and pazking setbacks. Trail Connections: Consideration should be giv ~p providing pedestrian and/or bicycle connections between Buffer Park and the Valley ]ve neighborhood to the Hennepin Pazks regional trail that presently terminates at the Park and hide lot at 8th Avenue. A trail connection wind be accommodated around the periphery of the business park site or could be included as part of an internal circulation system passing through the site. Access and Entry Points: Access to the site and entry points into the property are likely to be one of the more debated aspects of the redevelopment of the Public Works site. At the present time, the Hennepin County facility has a driveway access off of the south end of the property at the juncture of Sth Street South and 2nd Avenue South. Second Avenue South is posted as a truck prohibited route. A business pazk occupying 40 acres wiIl require multiple access points. The existing access to the south serves the property well by providing a connection to the 7th Street South/TH 169 interchange, A developer may find that this connection is essential to the development of a business park. Assuming that an access is needed on the south end to make a direct connection to the interchange, changes to the existing roadway ystem could be made to m~nimi~~ disruption of the existing neighborhood. it may be possible to extend 2nd Avenue South to the north, 612-t's35-3166 HCISiN6TCt! KCEu'LER Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum January 10, 1995 Page 7 128 r'd8 J HN 18 ' 95 14:24 through the Public Works site and connecting to 5th Avenue. such a roadway would need to be done in a manner that minimizes the bisecting of the business park area. Ia conjunction with the construction of this roadway, 5th Street South from 5th Avenue South to 2nd Avenue South could be vacated and the street could be removed. The combination of these improvements could enhance accessibility to the Public Works site while further separating the existing residential neighborhood. 1f this improvement were to occur, it is presumed that the business park would desire to allow truck traffic to use 2nd Avenue South. This issue may still be controversial with residents in the area whose property backs up to 2nd Avenue South, even though they aze currently separated by a significant berm and planting of. conifers. Amore detailed traffic analysis of this alternative would need to be completed as part of redevelopment site planning efforts. If access to the south is determined to be unworkable, the only alternative is to have an access point or multiple access points along either the north or west sides of the property. Licht Rail Transit: The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority recently confirmed that construction of an LRT line and station as proposed immediately north of the site is at least ] 0 years away. Whether it is an LRT station or other possible use, the truss manufacturing business needs to be relocated. It currently is a visual blight on the entire area and establishes a negative image. Realizing that the political and financial realities of LRT are far from reality, the potential of an LRT station site as proposed should be reflected in redevelopment plans for the Public Works site. Plans for example, should accommodate pedestrian and vehicular circulation from the station site to the business park. LRT would present access opportunities for reverse commuter employees for business park uses. The content of this site analysis memorandum is preliminary and observation oriented. The information contained herein, does solidly support the development of a business park on the Hennepin County Public Works site. Furthermore, it meets a number of the primary goals identified in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan including: ^ Protect the residential neighborhoods Improve deteriorating and/or obsolescent industrial or commercial areas. Bolster the image and character of the community. ^ Maintain fiscal health artd an acceptable balance between service quality and property tax rates. If you have questions pertaining to any of the information in this memorandum, please feel $ee to contact me. ~~ `J. W S F a 016-C]JJ-..Jl Ova ~ µ~ y y y ~ nJ ~ .w ~ ~ CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 97-795 AN ORDINANCE ADDING A BI3SINESS PARK DESIGNATION TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE That the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance No. 515-570 be, and the same is hereby amended by, amending and adding the following sections: Section 541--Zonine• business park 541.01 Business Park. The purpose of the Business Park District is intended to allow for business and industrial operations. The performance standards for this district are intended to establish and maintain high quality site planning, architecture, signage and landscape design to create an attractive and unified development character. 541.02 Uses. Within the Business Park District, no building or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: a. Free standing office buildings for corporate, administrative, executive, professional, research, sales representatives' offices, or similar organizations. b. Manufacturing, production, processing, storage, servicing, repair or testing of materials, goods or products that is wholly contained within a building and which between office, tech, and light manufacturing occupies at least 60 percent of the gross floor area of the building and a wazehouse use that occupies a maximum of 40 percent. c. Retail sate of products manufactured, warehoused or distributed on the premises where the retail floor azea does not exceed 15 percent of the gross floor area or 3,000 square feet, whichever is less, of the building in which the sales area is located. If the business park is phased over a period of time, a plan for the overall site development shall be submitted for approval. 541.03 District standards No building or land in the Business Park District shall be used except in conformance with the following: a) minimum lot size 1 acre (43,560 square feet) b) minimum lot width 100 feet c) building height: maximum 45 feet building heights up to 80 feet maybe permitted with ab increase of a two foot serback for each additional foot of building height abutting a residential district. d) e) minimum building setbacks 1) front yard 20 feet 50 feet abutting residential district 2) side yard 20 feet 50 feet abutting residential district 3) rear yard 20 feet 50 feet abutting residential district floor area ratio 1.00 minimum parking setbacks 1) front yard: 20 feet 50 feet abutting residential district 2) side yard: 10 feet 50 feet abutting residential district 3) rear yard: 10 feet 50 feet abutting residential district (If the development involves a parking structure, the building setbacks apply to the parking structure) g) lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be 85 percent and shall be calculated to include buildings footprints; parking areas; driveways; loading, storage and trash areas and other areas covered by any impervious surface. 541.04. Parking and loadine areas. Subdivision 1. Off-street pazking and loading areas must conform to the requirements of Section 550 with the following additional requirements: Subd. 2. Curbs. All parking and loading areas, aisles and driveways shall be bordered with raised concrete curbs approved by the City. Subd. 3. Loading docks. All loading docks si~all be located on the interior of the site or shall be screened from the public right-of--way. Subd. 4. Buffer. All off-street pazking shall be screened by a planting buffer screen. This buffer shall include a berm at a minimum height of three and one-half feet and landscaping adequate to screen the parking lot. Subd. 5. Traffic. The project shall bed°signed to minimize traffic impacts to any adjacent residential neighborhood. A traffic study may be required to demonstrate compliance with the requirement. 541. O5. Trash. The trash areas on the site shall be consolidated. Trash, recyclable materials, and associated handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure or in an accessory structure, attached or separate from the primary structure, constructed of building material compatible with the principal structure. 541.06. Open Stora¢e. Open storage areas shall be prohibited in the business park zoning district. Long-term outdoor parking or storage of commercial tractors and trailers is also prohibited. 541.07. Landscapin requirements. Subdivision 1. All open areas of a lot that are not used or improved for required parking aeeas and drives shall be landscaped with a combination of overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and ground cover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, fountains, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials. The following table is a minimum value for bushes, shrubbery and trees: Project Value Minimum (Including building construction, Landscape Value improvements) Below $1,000,000 2% $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 $20,000 + 1% of project value in excess of $1,000,000 $2,000,000--$3,000,000 $30,000 + .75% of project value in excess of $2,000,000 $3,000,000--$4,000,000 $37,500 -}' .25% of project value in excess of $3,000,000 over $4,000,000 1% Documentation showing an estimated dollar amount of landscaping shall be provided to the City prior to any approval. Subd. 2. Existing_materials. In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species as deterr^.ined by the City Forester exist on a site prior to ita development, th= application of the standards in this subdivision may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. The City may permit the seeding of areas reserved for future expansion of the development if consistent with the intent of this ordinance. Subd. 3. Preservation. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. A plan shall be submitted to the City showing the step to be undertaken to preserve the existing trees. Subd. 4. Size. Alt new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 1/2 inches. Coniferous trees shat[ be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 1/2 inches. Subd. 5. Ground cover. All site aeeas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios or similar hazd surface materials shalt be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the City. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. Subd. 6. Irri ag tion. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state. The sprinkler system is required to have a sensor for an automatic shut-off to prevent the system from operating when it is raining. Subd. 7. Parkine areas. Parking areas shall be landscaped and planted throughout the lot to the extent of at least 5% (excluding landscaping abutting the parking area and any public right-of--way) of the actual surfaced area. Subd. 8. Internal plans. The landscape plan shall also show the pathway system both interior and exterior, width and materials, screening fences with details, lighting system, recreation features, if any. 540.08. Architectural Standards. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architecture design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. a) architectural plans shall be prepared by an azchitect or other qualified person acceptable to the planning department and shall show the following: 1) elevations of all sides of the building; 2) type and color of exterior building materials; 3) typical floor plan; 4} dimensions of all structures; and 5) the location of trash containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. b) all buildings shall be finished on all sides with permanent finished materials of consistent quality. Major exterior surfaces of all primary structures shall be face brick, architectural concrete, glass, stucco, synthetic stucco, decorative block, or stone. Precast panels and concrete block maybe acceptable if incorporated in a building design that is compatible with other development throughout the district. The determination if precast panels and concrete block are acceptable is in the sole discretion of the Zoning and Planning Commission and City Council. A wall surface may use wood, vinyl, or metal, as accent material, provided they are appropriately integrated into the overall building design. c} all rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment, satellite dish antennas, and exterior trash storage areas shall be screened with materials compatible with the principal structure. d) underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures. e) accessory structures, either attached or detached from the primary structure, shall be constructed of identical materials, style, quality, and appearance as the principal structure. f) screen walls, and exposed azeas of retaining walls shall be of a similar type, quality, and appearance as the principal structure. 540, 09. Other information. The staff may require other information to complete the review of a business park. Other requirements may include a traffic study, lighting analysis, and a shadow analysis. All studies and analysis will be paid for by the applicant. 540.10. Li htin A lighting/illumination plan shall be submitted for review. The lighting/illumination plan shall detail the type and quantity of the lighting on the site. Plans for site lighting shall be coordinated with the landscape plan for developments within the subject area. Such lighting plans shall be designed to avoid any off-site glare from site lighting and any unnecessary light trespass. Maximum fixture height shall be compatible with the scale for the development and adjacent landscape features. Section 570-Signs 570.54. Permitted signs: business park distric: Subd. 1. Business Signs. Each business other than those in multi-tenant buildings may have one wall business sign limited to flat wall sign, not extending more than 18 inches from the face of the building, except that such signage may extend from the face of the roof over a covered walk. Such wall business signage shall not exceed 15% of the area of the wall to which the signage is attached, to a maximum of 96 square feet. Subd. 2. Monument signs. Uses other than those in multi-tenant buildings may have a monument sign that shall not exceed 80 s.luare feet per surface area, and 15 feet in height, and is setback a minimum 20 feet from the property lines. Subd. 3. Multi-tenant business signs. Each tenant in amulti-tenant building may have a wall business sign limited to a flat wall sign, not extending more than 18 inches from the face of the building, provided that they aze designed and arranged in accordance with a comprehensive sign plan for the entire multi-tenant building which has been prepared by, and submitted to the City by the owner and which has been approved by the City; further, the aggregate area of such signs shall not exceed 5% of the area of the wall to which they are attached. Subd. 4. Multi-tenant monument signs. One monument sign shall be permitted for each multi-tenant building provided the surface area of the sign does not exceed 100 square feet per side, 15 feet in height, and is setback in no case less than 20 feet from the property lines. The area may be increased to a maximum of 150 squaze feet per side for developments of over 20 acres. Subd. 5. Canopies and Awnings. The design of canopies shall be in keeping with the overall building design in terms of location, size, and color. No canopies with visible wall hangers shall be permitted. Signage on canopies may be substituted for allowed building signage and shall be limited to 25 percent of the canopy area. Internally illuminated canopies must be compatible with the overall color scheme of the building. Subd. 5. Review. All signs for tenants in multi- tenant buildings shall be reviewed by the building ownership or management who shall provide a written endorsement at the time application is made for the sign permit; the enaorsement shall indicate that the proposed signage has been found to be consistent with the approved comprehensive sign plan. Subd. 6. Flexibility. To provide reasonable flexibility in the sign regulations, set forth in this subdivision, the zoning administrator may, subject to the approval of the city council, approve an application for a sign that exceeds the number, size or height of signs permitted by these regulations where such exception would not be inconsistent with the intent of these regulations. New Definitions -Section 515 515 07 Subd 11 Architectural concrete• A building construction material consisting of concrete that has a surface design pattern and texture that enhances the architectural design of the b~rilding and is available in a variety of colors. 515 07 Subd 40 Decorative block• a building block of cast concrete and aggregate rock that has a split rock brick like burnished or ribbed texture on the side to be exposed and is available in a varied of colors. 515 07 Subd 56 Face brick a masonry buildi~ block or clay baked in a kiln until hard. 515.07 Subd. 106. Office• A use wherein services are_perr"ormed involving~redominantly administrative professional or clerical operations 515.07 Subd. 116 Plain concrete block: a building block of cast concrete that has no additional surface texturins 515.07 Subd 118. Precast panel• a building wall section of concrete poured into a form at the manufactures facility and shipped to the construction site for installation 515.07 Subd. 144. Synthetic stucco: a nonbearing exterior wall cladding system Qroviding both insulating value and finished exterior surface. . Subd. 155. Warehousi~ and distribution: A use engaged in storage wholesale and distribution of manufactured products supplies and equipment. but excluding bulk siorape of materials that are inflammable or explosive or that create hazardous or commonly recognized offensive conditions 570.01 Subd. 11. Sien -free standin : (see sign-pylon) 570.01 Subd. 13. Sign -monument: a siF;n whose base and structure are~ositioned primarily on the ground and are typically solid from$rade to the lop of the structure 57001 Subd. 16 Signpylon• A sign.,supported by one or more upright poles columns or braces placed in or on the around and not attached to any building or structure Other uses listed in 515.07 and 570.01 are to be renumbered accordingly. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Publication: Date Ordinance Takes Effect: ATTEST: January 7, 1997 3anuary 21, 1997 7anuary 29, 1997 February 18, 1997 Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor Terry Obermaier, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney S~~nature Date ~-- Il/ ;% ;~- 4 P .~~ ' `~'1 I ~.. ~~ , '` ~ ~~ ar ~ i SC+~a ~i ~ ~ 4 1 i u ~^ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ '~ . ~ -~ / r/r}f4Yrr v !t'r' ~,' j/j 1 / / ~}rr.~r~ q~~".rnr~~}•.w.r~ ~.} rr y r`r..^ fi* ..vr ~r+r+ I // virr r r:{{i}~rr}~,.~r~'S,?,; e~;}frFjf ~-/1 }rr,},~,$rf$vr of }rrv~.a• r1''vt. .y.~{.+Y'rv~,~n y i r/r.r 4J'f;~r~f ~j. ,.vS /~ 1' r rr ."`` ~~ ii 1 1 j ~' ~ 3 ~ 1 ' ~~~ " 1 ~~, ~°, ,~ ~~1 lli,r- ~~I; ~ s4 ~ '~ ,r 1 ~5 /f~ ~ if/ri/!tn'i.