Memo- Hennepin County Public Works PropertyMemorandum
I. Purpose of Memo
II. Overview
JK03097A
PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Copy; Steve Mielke, City Manager
From: Jim Kerrigan, Planning & Economic Development Director
Date: March 4, 1997
Subject: Hennepin County Public Works Property
At the January 14 work session, there was a discussion concerning future reuse
of the Hennepin County Public Works property. As part of this meeting, officials
from SuperValu detailed an office /warehouse project that they would like to
construct on this property. The Council concluded their discussion by
requesting some additional information on the SuperValu proposal. This has
now been prepared, and the item has been placed on the March 11 Council work
session agenda.
As previously detailed, Hennepin County is now under construction of 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 sale through a sealed bid process sometime in the latter part of 1997.
In the previous discussion of the SuperValu proposal, there was a concern
expressed by the Council that the project would be primarily warehouse;
however, a few Council members stated they might be interested if SuperValu's
development on the county property would help to facilitate a redevelopment of
the 28 -acre north annex property (former Red Owl operation). Attached is a
schedule that has been prepared by SuperValu identifying when they would
envision vacating this property and therefore making it available for possible
redevelopment.
In meeting with SuperValu, they have stated they are eager to receive direction
from the Council on whether there is interest in their project for the county
property. Representatives will be at the March 11 meeting to provide more detail
and answer questions concerning their project.
III. Primary Issues to Consider
1. SuperValu Proposal
Attached is a site plan prepared by SuperValu for their project on the Hennepin
County property. The specifics of this project would involve the following:
o Approximately 450,000 square feet of warehouse space and 50,000 square
feet of office and employee facilities (there would be the possibility that the
warehouse space would be expanded westerly on the site at some future
date)
o The warehouse space would have a height of approximately 45 feet
o Exterior material would probably be tip -up, textured concrete panels
o Dock doors would be located along the entire north and south parameters of
the building
o Truck traffic would enter and exit the site from the north; automobile traffic
would be oriented to the south
o SuperValu has stated that they would do extensive berming and landscaping
to separate the truck - loading area on the south from the adjacent
neighborhood
o The estimated construction costs would be $20 to $25 million
In considering the SuperValu proposal, the Council needs to be aware of the
following:
o The project as proposed would be, for the most part, warehouse space, which
would create limited jobs for the City and generate less property taxes than
some of the other projects that have been discussed for this site.
o If SuperValu cannot accommodate their future growth needs in Hopkins, they
may be forced to look at relocating all or a portion of their operation out of
Hopkins. This would result in a loss of 1,230 jobs for the City, of which 133
are Hopkins residents.
o The Park Valley neighborhood appears to be supportive of SuperValu
locating on this property. In the past, SuperValu has done a good job of
buffering their development from residential properties and dealing with traffic
issues and concerns.
JK03047A
3K0304'A
Also, as detailed previously, if SuperValu constructs on the county property,
they have stated that they would vacate their use of the north annex property
and put it up for sale, which could possibly result in redevelopment of the site.
Attached is the following information, which has been prepared in response to a
previous Council request concerning redevelopment of this property:
O A memo from Nancy Anderson concerning redevelopment alternatives based
on both industrial and business park zoning
O A memo from Jim Benshoof of Benshoof and Associates, Inc., providing a
preliminary analysis addressing the alternatives for improved access to the
site
The Council needs to understand that by placing the north annex property on the
market for sale, there are two scenarios that could occur:
o A buyer would utilize the existing buildings, with possibly some improvements
O A buyer would demolish the existing buildings and redevelop the site based
on the zoning in place at the time
2. What actions have been previously taken by the City /HRA concerning this
parcel?
O In September 1994 City staff met with representatives of SuperValu, who
expressed an interest in moving their warehouse operation north of Excelsior
Boulevard to this location; however, they later notified the City that they were
not interested in constructing on the subject property.
o 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.
O Staff met with the Park Valley neighborhood to discuss various redevelopment
options. Overall, the majority of people seemed 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.
O 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 a request- 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
IV. Conclusion
Based on existing circumstances, the county will probably put their Hopkins
property up for sale some time toward the latter part of this year or early 1998.
They have stated there have already been a number of interested developers,
who have contacted them. It is anticipated that many of the groups who
JK03041A
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.
3. Land Use Issues
As stated previously, the property is zoned 1 -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 Valley
residents, they have stated they are not supportive of residential, other than
possibly single family, detached.
The 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.
4. Discussion with Hennepin County
In mid - January, City staff met with county officials to discuss various issues
regarding this project. The basic conclusion of this discussion was the following:
o The county appears to be willing to try to work with the City to help facilitate a
development
o The county may be willing to consider some type of process to re- appraise the
property; however, they still feel this at this time the property has a value of
$2.50 per square foot
o The County is not in favor of using tax increment on this property and stated
they would probably place a covenant on the deed, restricting its use
3K0304'A
responded to the HRA RFQ will probably submit offers on the property.
SuperValu would also have the ability to make an offer at this time.
In discussing alternatives, the Council needs to decide whether they wish to
have the HRA again get involved in trying to facilitate a specific project, whether
it be the SuperValu proposal or some other project. From the staffs perspective,
it would only be recommended that the HRA supersede the County sale process
as detailed above if there is a project the Council feels would have a very
positive impact on the community and it is felt it would not occur without HRA
involvement. If the HRA has an interest in a specific project, the next action
would be to have the HRA authorize staff to initiate a process with the county
and developer to facilitate the project. As part of this action, staff would also
propose that a development agreement be negotiated detailing the following:
O The project would be constructed in accordance with a submitted site plan
and time schedule.
O The developer should be required to make an up -front payment at the time
the development agreement is executed to ensure that they are truly
interested in proceeding with the project. (The county does not want to go
through the effort of again negotiating an option with the HRA unless
everybody is confident it will result in a project.) Finally, the developer would
also be required to reimburse the HRA for the amount of the option payment
and other costs incurred by the HRA in facilitating the transaction, i.e., legal
costs, appraisal costs, etc.
o The option would be transferred by the HRA once the developer had complied
with all the terms of the development agreement necessary to actually
facilitate construction of the development.
O The project would not receive public assistance.
• In the case of SuperValu, there should also be language detailing how the
north annex property would be made available for development.
V. Attachments
O Letter, site plan, vicinity map, and planning schedule from SuperValu
O Preliminary site analysis prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, dated
January 10, 1995
o Site Map
O Memo from Nancy Anderson, dated February 11, 1997
o Memo from Jim Benshoof of Benshoof & Associates, Inc., dated March 3,
1997
Alternative Uses
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
1<
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 Hopkins to enter into an agreement with Hennepin County which essentially 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
analyze 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.
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 inckude: single - family residential, multi- family
residential, retail, office and office warehouse, industrial, or a mix of uses. The 1989 plan called
for a mixture of residential and commercial use of the property.
Land Use - Environmental • Planning %Design
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 park 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 are 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, it
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% of the
perimeter boundary of the site abuts a single- family neighborhood. The vast majority of the site's
perimeter abuts either commercial industrial buildings or freeway tight -of -way. Access to the
area as well as abutting land uses creates an environment that is not conducive to the construction
of new single - family homes.
The 1989 Comprehensive Plan called for multi- family residential on the southem portion of the
property. The strongest argument 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 location 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 opportunities and therefore, a redevelopment parcel of this magnitude can be used
for a more appropriate purpose.
Retail Uses: The Hennepin County Public Works site is large 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. Both access and visibility pose concerns at the
present time as well as into the near future. These concerns generally focus on the fact that the
site is detached from direct access to a major roadway and visibility is hindered by existing
development and the TH 169 bridge that crosses County Road 3. These issues are further
referenced in the site analysis portion of this memorandum.
Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum
January 10, 1995
Page 3
Office. Office/Warehouse 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. Designed as a campus
type of environment, the development could be built in manner that creates a positive impression
when viewed from TI-1 169. As such, it could become a signature of the community, similar to
but not certainly of the same scale as the 8400 Tower area in the City of Bloomington or the
Carlson Tower in the City of Minnetonka.
• Further evidence of the site's potential for development as a business park was documented
during the data collection phase of the County Road 3 Corridor Study. As a part of that planning
effort, representatives from two of the Twin Cities major development companies reviewed sites
along the corridor and provided their perspective on appropriate future use. At that time, both
commented that if the Hennepin County Public Works site was not used by Supervalu, it had a
strong potential as a business park site. `�v >� C„ jS
Mixed Uses: There are a variety of mixed use scenarios that could be implemented on the site.
The inherent disadvantage of any mixed use combination relates to the identified disadvantages
of the individual specific uses noted. For example, adding a residential component still creates
both the physical and policy concerns. 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 summarized 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. The following is an overview
of each of these factors. Additionally, they are depicted on the site analysis graphic:
Access: 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 truck traffic to one primary location
while affording automobile access for employees and visitors at alternative entrances. Trucks are
prohibited from using Second Avenue South which is posted with signage.
Visibility: 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 find 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 obstruct 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 TH 169
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 South/ 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 nature of the land 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.
Approximately 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.
Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum
January 10, 1995
Page 5
Existing Edge Treatments: The Hennepin County Public Works building is relatively open around
the edges, with portions of the boundaries controlled by chain link fencing around 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 on Valley Drive. Redevelopment of the Public Works site
will need to consider additional buffering for the entire neighborhood area located to the south.
Existing 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 are offered. The roadway system
currently serving the Public Works site appears to have adequate width to handle two full lanes
of tuck and automobile movement. The roads on the north and west sides of the site are 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.
Light Rail Transit (LRT): The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority has retained
existing railroad right -of -way north of the site for future construction of an LRT line and station.
(See Attachment A) The timing of construction of LRT in 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 park. Such a park would likely include office
buildings, office warehouse/showroom 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 collection of differing individual elements.
Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum
January 10, 1995
Page 6
▪ Building Materials and Height: Since the Public Works site lies within a quadrant of one of
materials
Hopkins' most significant intersections, buildings need to be constructed Building s around the
that will both minimize maintenance and will be aesthetically pleasing.
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. While the market is not likely
to support an office tower at this location, a 3 to 5 story office 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 on TH 169.
■ Existing Zoning Regulations: In 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
ja ��
street system and/or oriented in a manner that they do not face the surrounding
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 berrning,
landscaping and expanded building and parking setbacks.
Trail Connections: Consideration should be giv Jt providing pedestrian and/or bicycle
• connections between Buffer Park and the Valley ie neighborhood to the Hennepin Parks
regional trail that presently terminates at the Park and Ride lot at 8th Avenue. A trail
connection could 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 5th Street South and 2nd Avenue South. Second Avenue South
is posted as a truck prohibited route. A business park occupying 40 acres will require
multiple access points. The existing access to the south serves the property well by providing
a connection to the 7th Street South/rH 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 ; onn7cction to the
interchange, changes to the existing roadway system could be made to
of the existing neighborhood. It may be possible to extend 2nd Avenue South to the noz
Oia G
Hennepin County Public Works Site Analysis Memorandum
January 10, 1995
Page 7
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. In
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. If 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 are currently separated by a significant berm and planting
of conifers. A more 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 10 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 and 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 free
to contact me.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 97 -795
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A BUSINESS 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 -- Zoning: 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 warehouse use that occupies a
maximum of 40 percent.
c. Retail sale of products manufactured, warehoused or distributed on
the premises where the retail floor area 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 h:ight• maximum 45 feet
building 'rights up to 80 feet maybe permitted with an increase of a
two foot setback for each additional foot of building height abutting
a residential district.
d) 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
e) floor area ratio 1.00
0 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 loading areas. Subdivision 1. Off - street parking and loading areas must
conform to the requirements of Section 550 with the following additicnal 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 shall be located on the interior of the site or
shall be screened from the public right -of -way
Subd. 4. Buffer. All off - street parking 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 s::all be d °signed to minimize traffic impacts to any adjacent
residential neighborhood. A traffic study may be required to demonstrate compliance with the
requirement.
541. 05. 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 Storage. Open storage areas shall be prohibited in the business park zoning
district. , outdoor parking or storage of commercial tractors and trailers is also
prohibitd.
541.07. Landscaping requirements. Subdivision 1. All open areas of a lot that are not used or
improved for required parking areas 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
51,000,000
$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.
SI »bd. 2. Existing materials. In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable
species as determined by the City Forester exist on a site prior to its 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. All 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 shall 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 areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots,
driveways, patios or similar hard surface materials shall 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. Irrigation. 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. Parking 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 architect 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 may be 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 areas 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. Lighting. 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 district.
Subd. I. 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. Ur-2S other than those in multi- tenant buildings may have a
monument sign that shall not exceed 80 square 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 a multi -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 are 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 square 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 endorsement 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
building 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 variety of colors.
515.07 Subd. 56. Face brick a masonry building block or clay baked in a kiln until hard.
515.07 Subd. 106. Office: A use wherein services are performed involving predominantly
administrative, professional or clerical operations.
515.07 Subd. 116. Plain concrete Klock: a building block of cast concrete that has no additional
surface texturing.
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 providing both
insulating value and finished exterior surface.
515.07 Subd. 150. Warehouse: (sce motor freight) Subd. 155. Warehousing and distribution:
A use engaged in storage, wholesale, and distribution of manufactured products, supplies, and
eauipment, but excluding_ bulk storage of materials that are inflammable or explosive or that
create hazardous or commonly recognized offensive conditions.
570.01 Subd. 11. Sign - free standing: (see sign- pylon)
570.01 Subd. 13. Sign - monument: a sign whose base and structure are positioned primarily on
the ground and are tvpically solid from grade to the top of the structure.
570.01 Subd. 16. Sign - pylon: A sign supported by one or more upright poles columns or
braces placed in or on the ground and not attached to any building or structure.
Other uses listed in 515.07 and 570.01 are to be renumbered accordingly.
First Reading: January 7, 1997
Second Reading: January 21, 1997
Date of Publication: January 29, 1997
Date Ordinance Takes Effect: February 18, 1997
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Sknature Date
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
-Ln
SC•••a
SCM
-J
3
I-2 1
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LOCATION MAP
iii / / / /// /// // /
Northern Region
aUPERA LU
7Q Box
.J rreaao,s ,..
5' 2 932 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
Dear 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
Boulevard (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.
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 years. 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.
Since
ly,
John Vegter
Vice President, Logistics
Northern region
John Vegter Vice President
Logistics
Northern Region
WPERLIAL
PO Box 1451
Minneapolis, MN 55440
612 932 4372
March 3, 1997
James D Kerrigan
City of Hopkins
Planning & Economic Development Director
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Re: SUPERVALU Long Range Facility Planning Schedule
Dear Jim,
The following is a proposed schedule of events if SUPERVALU were successful in
purchasing the Hennepin County Public Works property. These dates are tentative and
subject to change, however, they are our best projections todate of how the project might
come together. If you have any questions please call me at 932 -4372.
Obtain control of site
Begin site and facility design
Bid construction work
Begin construction
Place North Annex Property on market for sale
Complete construction
Start-up DC operations in new facility
Phase out North Annex operations
North Annex vacated
Sincerely, q
Vegter
ger t
cc:
Deb Carlson
Lloyd Johnson
Mike Daly
Joe DeWit
August, 1997
January, 1998
July, 1998
October, 1998
January, 1999
June, 1999
July, 1999
August 4 October, 1999
November, 1999
03/05/97 ❑. -'I? FAX 612 914 5850 PLMK situ
'tsIlllllllilllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilfllll
'OS '3AV 1H1 9
z
691 'AMH
_.1i16161611116110(111111616661111110 1 1 1 L
ZQZ- vmnne mm
1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 If
Ln
cr
In
X I
1./.1
Z
<
/—
CC
CD
• \ \ .1- 1,:t .'
•
•
‘•
. —
0
\ •
\
I I--
I =
i m
1—
tai
w
CC
4-
H„Li I 1111 1 1 .
L
'AMH
OS 3Av 'ul
a.
0
To: Jim Kerrigan
From: Nancy Anderson
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 1997
Subject: SuperValu North Annex property
The following are some examples of the square footage for buildings that could be
constructed on the SuperValu North Annex property:
Size of site: 28 acres x 43,560 square feet = 1,219,680 square feet for the site
Development with proposed business park ordinance
Maximum building potential:
Floor Area Ratio is 1.00 could build 1,219,680 square feet of building
40% maximum warehouse 487,872 square feet
60% minimum office, tech, light manufacturing 731,808 square feet
Probable building constructed with proposed business park ordinance
30% building coverage for a total 365,904 square feet
40% maximum warehouse 146,361 square feet
60% minimum office, tech, light manufacturing 219, 543 square feet
40% building coverage for a total of 487,872 square feet
40% maximum warehouse 195,149 square feet
60% minimum office, tech, light manufacturing 292,723 square feet
Industrial zoning
Floor Area Ratio .60
Maximum building potential 726,000 square feet -- could be 100% warehouse
tw►
COUNTY
SECOND - "T
(14) 2
3
INDUSTRIAL ZONING
726,000 SQUARE FEET
27
26 (84
IM it on
p 24 (82)
23 (8I)
I(16) 6_ 11
8
1719 bi
10 I
(65) 7' o
'tI
(73)13
74) 434
k
1
1
l*
s
/5
(EXCELSIOR'
WAVE.)
24 (82)
•
TI
�1
6 1 90) N
( 10)12
171) 13 4
28 (83 t½,'
(75)Id d i
(74) ,
30 (86
23(8(
22(8
h 21 (79)
4 1:
(a)
MEM
COUNTY
'kV
SECOIVO
PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK ZONING
40% BUILDING COVERAGE
195,149 SQUARE FEET WAREHOUSE
292,723 SQUARE FEET
OFFICE, TECH
OR LIGHT MANUFACTURING
12
178113
(65) 7
(66) 8
(67) 9
( 68) 10
ter f
(56)
f (78)IA a)
h za(78) i� 19
c
5d
la I
1
1
(EXCELSIOR'
A vE .l
•
x2
31 (87),
30 (86
39 (
c+ 28 (88)
27 (f0) i2
26 (84 (7I) 13
M
25033 (7 1. 4 14,
_ 24 (82J (73)14
( 23 (81) (74)
e 22 (8
ti 2 ! (79) (7831$ h
20 (78)
Mir
••■• r i
COUNTY
( t�
S ! - - - -
�
/5
SECOND
PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK ZONING
30% BUILDING COVERAGE
146,361 SQUARE FEET
WAREHOUSE
219,543 SQUARE FEET
OFFICE, TECH
OR LIGHT MANUFACTURING
I151 _ I_
14) 2
3
4 5
6) 6
7 rot
a
a7) 9 `°I
10 — I
(65) 7 21
(66) 8 p
(67) 9 m
NI
(77) 19 ley
50I
W BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
7301 OHMS LANE, SUITE 500 / EDINA, MN 55439 / (612) 832 -9858 / FAX (612) 832 -9564
March 3, 1997
REFER TO FILE. 97- 11
MEMORANDUM
To: Tim Kerrigan, City of Hopkins
From: James A. Benshooffe
Re: Preliminary Comments Regarding Access Opportunities and Constraints for Super Valu
Annex Site
PURPOSE
You recently indicated to us that Super Valu may be interested in developing a new facility on the
Hennepin County site and, in the process, vacating their existing "annex" site on the north side of
Excelsior Boulevard and east of Highway 169. To assist City staff in addressing this possible
scenario, you asked us to review access opportunities and constraints for the Super Valu annex
site. The idea is that possible access arrangements for the site would have a significant influence
on the type(s) of uses that could be developed on that property.
In the context of the preceding points, the purpose of this memorandum is to offer preliminary
comments on possible access arrangements for the Super Value annex site. As further
development planning occurs for this property, additional traffic studies could be performed to
establish a specific access solution that effectively serves the development and that meets the
needs of the City, County, and Mn/DOT.
CURRENT EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The Excelsior Boulevard improvement plan approved by the City in 1994 includes the following
changes to Excelsior Boulevard in the vicinity of the annex site:
a) Construction of a new roadway between Excelsior Boulevard and Milwaukee Street at the
location of the east ramp intersection for Highway 169. This roadway would change the
intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 169 from a T intersection to a four -way
intersection and would involve a new at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks. The prime
purposes of this new roadway are: 1) to provide an adequate connection between the
annex site and the main Super Valu facilities on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard and
2) to improve the overall access for the Super Valu facilities on the south side of Excelsior
Boulevard.
Mr. Jim Kerrigan
-2- March 3, 1997
b) Closure of St. Louis Street between Excelsior Boulevard and Jackson Avenue. The
purpose of this closure is to resolve the difficulties experienced at the current flat angle
intersection between Excelsior Boulevard and St. Louis Street.
c) Closure of Milwaukee Street east of the new connection between Milwaukee Street and
Excelsior Boulevard. With this new connection to Excelsior Boulevard, the segment of
Milwaukee Street to the east is no longer needed. Further, closure of this segment would
be beneficial in eliminating the existing difficulties at the current flat angle intersection of
Milwaukee Street and Excelsior Boulevard.
d) Extension of Jackson Avenue south of the railroad tracks to Excelsior Boulevard. The
purpose of this extension is to provide an effective full access point on Excelsior
Boulevard to replace the awlcward % access arrangement that presently exists at St. Louis
Street and Excelsior Boulevard.
POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO iRAFFIC NEEDS AND CRITERIA
If Super Valu were to develop a new facility on the Hennepin County site and vacate the annex
site, the traffic needs and criteria that formed the basis for the previously described Excelsior
Boulevard improvement plan would be significantly changed. Two major changes are as follows:
a) The need for a connection between Milwaukee Street and Excelsior Boulevard at the east
ramp intersection with Highway 169 would be substantially reduced. Super Valu's
operations would be concentrated south of Excelsior Boulevard, and their vehicles no
longer would need to cross Excelsior Boulevard between sites north and south of this
roadway.
b) Needs may be experienced for improved access between Excelsior Boulevard and the
annex site. Super Valu's existing use of the property for warehousing and distribution
purposes does not require access arrangements that are as direct and convenient as the
access required by some other candidate uses for the property.
POTENTIAL ACCESS REVISIONS TO EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PLAN
TO SERVE SUPER VALU ANNEX SITE
We have developed preliminary comments on possible access arrangements based on the points
previously described and on application of pertinent transportation engineering principles. Our
preliminary recommendations are shown on Figure 1 and are summarized below:
a) Eliminate the planned roadway connection between Milwaukee Street and Excelsior
Boulevard at the east ramp intersection of Highway 169. Strong needs for this connection
no longer would exist if Super Valu's operations are concentrated south of Excelsior
Boulevard. Elimination of this connection would be beneficial in terms of preserving
higher levels of traffic service for existing movements at the intersection of Excelsior
Boulevard and the east ramps for Highway 169 and in terms of avoiding the additional
vehicle /train conflicts that would be created with a new at -grade crossing.
Mr. Jim Kerrigan
-3- March 3, 1997
b) Extend Milwaukee Street east to a new intersection with Jackson Avenue just south of
Excelsior Boulevard. This extension would be needed to provide adequate accessibility
between Excelsior Boulevard and properties south of this roadway. We recognize that
residents along Jackson Avenue south of Excelsior Boulevard may be sensitive to truck
traffic using Milwaukee Street to access Excelsior Boulevard at the existing Jackson
Avenue location. We believe that several design and traffic control alternatives are
available to accommodate the truck traffic on Milwaukee Street, without causing adverse
impacts on the neighborhood.
c) Construct, if needed, a 3 /4 access intersection on Excelsior Boulevard just west of the
existing St. Louis Street intersection Similar to the existing St. Louis Street intersection,
this new access would accommodate all movements, except Ieft turns from the north to
the east. If the annex site were developed as a single overall use, this access could be a
private driveway. On the other hand, if the site were subdivided into multiple parcels for
development, it would be preferable for this' access to be a public street that either
would extend north to 2n Street or east to Jackson Avenue. It is suggested that this
access accommodate 3 of the 4 possible movements, and not full access, in order to
preserve adequate spacing of traffic signals on Excelsior Boulevard and in order to
minimize disruption to traffic flow on Excelsior Boulevard.
With the above access arrangements, we believe that the annex site would have excellent
accessibility to complement its high visibility from Highway 169 and Excelsior Boulevard. In
addition to the previously mentioned % access point on Excelsior Boulevard, the site would have
access on 2" Street and Jackson Avenue, with Jackson Avenue being extended south to include a
new signalized intersection on Excelsior Boulevard.
We welcome any questions or comments that you or other participants may have regarding the
points expressed in this memorandum. Also, we are available to provide any follow -up assistance
that may be needed.
3/4 ACCESS IS EITHER A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. IF ONE
DEVELOPMENT OCCUPIES THE ENTIRE SITE. OR IS A
PUBLIC STREET EXTENDED TO 2ND ST. OR JACKSON AVE.
REMOVE
STREET
NUMEROUS LAYOUT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
THIS INTERSECTION TO SERVE PROPERTIES TO WEST AND SOUTH,
WITHOUT CAUSING ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD
wT TO 5CAJJC
TRAFFIC
der SIGNAL
CONTROL
CITY OF HOPKINS
W p BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1RMSPCRTAllp1 ENQNEERS AND PLANNERS
TRAFFIC CONSIDERATION
REGARDING POTENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ON
SUPER VALU ANNEX SITE
FIGURE
POTENTIAL TRAFFIC
CONCEPT