Loading...
Memo Dome Issues/Tait's RenovationPS03066A CITY OF HOPKINS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 1996 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul T. Steinman, Community Development Specialist SUBJECT: Dome Issues and Tait's Renovation Project I. PURPOSE OF MEMO The purpose of this memo is to provide information on various issues regarding either retaining or demolishing the dome structure on the north side of the Boston Garden restaurant, and also to discuss the timing issue of the Tait's SuperValu renovation project. II. OVERVIEW A discussion of issues regarding retaining or demolishing the dome has already occurred at a previous Council meeting. At this meeting it was apparent that a decision on this matter is linked to the timing of the Tait's SuperValu renovation project. It was, therefore, determined that it would be beneficial to discuss these two projects at the same time. Related specifically to the dome and Tait's project is a redevelopment agreement executed between the HRA and T & H. Markets, Inc. (Mike Tait). This redevelopment agreement outlines the following primary issues to consider in this discussion: • A minimum of 20 parking spaces is to be provided on the dome lot, and a document is to be recorded against such property to retain these spaces for use by the general public for parking • Within 90 days of September 1, 1995, the parking lot was to be fully constructed by the City • By March 1, 1996, Mike Tait was required to begin the renovation project • A penalty of $100,000 was to be applied to T & H Markets in the event of a default on the agreement Memo to Mayor and City Council, March 6, 1996 - Page 2 III. PRIMARY ISSDES TO CONSIDER o What are the costs involved in dome demolition at this time? PS03066 Staff estimates the following costs for demolition of the dome structure and construction of the parking lot: • Approx. $10,000- $12,000 - Dome demolition • Approx. $40,000 • Approx. $40,000 - • Approx. $60,000 - $65,000 - - Parking lot construction If the dome structure is retained, staff estimates the following costs: Parking lot construction Provide a westerly face on the dome roof - Lighting - Paint interior roof - Structural steel bracing - Other costs associated with upgrading the aesthetic appearance of the dome The estimated annual operating costs associated with retaining the dome are approximately $3,500 to $7,000 per year. Other costs associated with retaining the dome include roof replacement in approximately five years at a cost of $25,000 to $50,000 and painting the interior each five to seven years at a cost of approximately $10,000 to $12,000 each time. To date, the City has spent approximately $15,000 to retain the dome in its current condition. o What has been received from the Dome Committee? The Dome Committee, consisting of Ed Hanlon, Bob Miller, and Mike Tait, submitted a summary of their meetings regarding this issue. All three of the Committee members were, however, unable to reach a consensus on whether to retain the dome roof. Attached to this memo is a letter from this committee dated January 30, 1996. o What is the timing for completion of improvements to Tait's SuperValu? Mike Tait has informed staff that he has submitted a request to First Bank for financing in the amount of approximately $1.1 million. In addition to the $1.1 million bank financing, Mr. Tait estimates he will be Memo to Mayor and City Council, March 6, 1996 - Page 3 providing equity in the amount of approximately $400,000 and, together with the City's $200,000 Commercial Rehab Loan, the total project will be approximately $1.7 million. Mr. Tait has indicated that in the event First Bank does not approve such financing, he anticipates bringing the identical package to Citizen's Independent Bank for review. If this financing is unsuccessful, Mr. Tait is then proposing to reduce the dollar amount of his project to approximately $1 million. Mr. Tait anticipates being under construction as soon as he is able to obtain a financial commitment from a banking institution. One of the major delays with regard to timing of this project has been negotiations with the current building owner, Don Hagen, to have him agree to allow a mortgage to be placed on the property to secure the bank financing. Mr. Tait has informed staff that Mr. Hagen has only recently agreed to allow a portion of the bank financing to be secured through a mortgage lien on the property. It is staff's understanding that the bank is currently reviewing this proposal. The City's Commercial Rehab Loan would likely be secured by new equipment that Mr. Tait will be purchasing for his renovation. Mr. Tait has indicated that the term of the City's $200,000 loan would be five years. IV CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is staff's feeling that the Tait renovation project will be proceeding regardless of the situation with the dome. Mr. Tait has indicated he has already spent a substantial amount of money (approximately $100,000) to begin purchasing, installing, and training employees on new equipment. Staff strongly encourages that a decision be made on whether or not to retain the dome as soon as possible. Staff foresees the following two scenarios taking a substantial amount of time to complete with regard to this issue: PS03066A (1) Demolish Dome Secure bids for dome demolition • Redesign and bid parking lot construction immediately after dome demolition • Begin improvements to the exterior wall of the Boston Garden building and outdoorsman Memo to Mayor and City Council, March 6, 1996 - Page 4 P603066A (2) Retain Dome • Secure architectural bids for upgrading the aesthetic appearance of the dome structure • Have Council undertake a process to agree on concept and design, and proceed with getting bids and completing such improvements • Redesign and bid parking lot construction with the dome structure in place • Begin completing improvements to the exterior wall of the Boston Garden building and Outdoorsman Staff foresees each of these two scenarios taking a fairly substantial amount of time to complete -- likely a minimum three to five months. With this time frame in mind, if a decision were made in March, the soonest the project, under either scenario, would be substantially completed would be late June or late August. Attachment IP City of Hopkins c/o Paul Steinman 1010 First Street South Hopkins, Mn.55343 cc Honorable Mayor and City Council January 30, 1996 From: Dome Issues Committee: Ed Hanlon, Bob Miller, Mike Tait (933.00300) (938.8440) ( 938.6301) Our committee held several meetings to discuss the issues relative to retaining the curved roof structure over the new lot #500 addition. We agreed with the Position statement of the HBCA Board of Directors in terms of its purpose. It is the consensus of the committee that the Dome should remain with the following conditions; A. Visibility; That the structure does not impede the visibility of Taits from the corner of l Ith and Mainstreet. This has been accomplished by removing the first bay, and should be kept in mind when adding any additional pillar support that may be needed. B. Appearance; The overall appearance of the structure should be enhanced by using paints, lights, skylights and hardware that compliment the new Mainstreet scape and that which would show off as much of the steel support structure as possible. Wall murals of a "Market Place" nature would be very desirable. (i.e. St Lawrence Market in Toranto) C. Design; That the lot's marked spaces and traffic flow design should be oriented to the spaces and traffic flow of the portion of the lot nearest to Taits. It is important that the Taits' customer perceives the new section of parking as added parking for the grocery store. A "one -way" version of the original design as pictured in the Sun Sailor was our first choice. ( see attachment ) D: Enhanced Parking: "Hopkins 11th Ave Pavilion" or "Hopkins Marketplace Pavilion" are a couple of building names that we liked. The names are submitted so as to convey a sense o€ purpose for keeping the structure. The priority is to provide enhanced additional parking for the retail customers in the area. This is a secondary benefit to the businesses in the area, and a primary benefit to the downtown customer. E. Market Place; The pavilion's second purpose would be to provide very limited use for quality events that would help to build the Hopkins' Marketplace atmosphere. i.e. the Farmers Market which currently operates in the open and potentially rainy conditions of the Downtown park and an occasional Art fair use that would compliment a festival event. F. Use and Restrictions Use of the structure for an event purpose should be treated as any other special event which would require the use of a parking lot or street. i.e. A special use permit would be applied for by a qualifying organization; We suggest that the following rules and guidelines be accepted and used for such a purpose; Farmers Market; Encourage its use so as to promote and facilitate a Home Grown Minnesota farm goods market. Grocery stores licensed in Hopkins may also vend from the pavilion during scheduled "Market" times. tts use should be limited to take up no more than 1/3 of the spaces for parking (8) and no more than 1 day per week (Sunday is preferred by Taits, but Saturday is ok) and no more than 4 hours at a time (8am -noon currently) Art Fairs; As a cultural enhancement to the area Art fairs in conjunction with a city festival ( i.e. Mainstreet Days, Raspberry Fest. etc.) would be encouraged. Limit to one fair per year lasting no longer than one weekend ( Sat/ Sun). Input and guidance from the HAAA may help to ensure that the Art fairs are in fact art. It would not be in the interest or spirit of intentions to use the pavilion for other markets such as; Flea Markets, Auto Shows, Antique Sales etc. Rained Out Events; Hopkins business and civic organization events that plan to use the pavilion due to weather conditions could do so provided that request are submitted at least 30 days prior to the need and that the final decision to relocate the event is made 3 hours prior. i.e. Music in the park, Rasp. Fashion Show, Talent contest. Prohibited Use. Events that would not be appropriate for its use would be events that; 1. Are too big in scope that would aggravate parking needs of the local businesses, 2. Events that may disturb the peace of the nearby residential community. 3. Events that are longer than 2 days in length i.e. Christmas tree sale. 4. Events that take place during key grocery sell weeks. ( see Taits 10.20.96 letter) G. Roof Drainage; We defer this issue to the experts in public works. (see Norb Kerber 10/19/95 letter) H. Financing Ongoing Maintenance; This is the only area that we could not reach a consensus. We agreed that there are many options that could be explored. i.e. General tax fund, Special assessments, Rental revenues, or private ownership. Mike Tait does not feel it should be an expense for the general fund. Bob Miller and I feel that there is both purpose and president to support the argument for funding the maintenance from the general fund. Private ownership is also a viable possibility. We were not able to bring this discussion to a conclusion due to the urgency of reporting our overall recommendations. In conclusion we feel that by taking it down it be would a lost opportunity for ever, however if lip keeping it where to prove to be `, - gretful decision the risk would be minimal to raise it several years from now.