CR 96-72 Dome PropertyApril 11, 1996
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the following motion be approved: Authorize staff to solicit bids and enter into
a contract for demolition of the dome roof.
The motion will allow staff to negotiate a price and enter into a contract for demolition of the
dome structure.
Overview
"DOME" PROPERTY
In October 1995, the HRA /Council agreed to retain the dome roof in an effort to further explore
the potential opportunities of retaining such a structure. Approximately $15,000 - $17,000 has
been spent to date to retain the dome roof.
The HRAJCouncil asked that staff further research the issue of whether or not to retain the dome
structure and provide further direction to the Council regarding this issue.
A "Dome Committee" was formed, consisting of Ed Hanlon, Mike Tait, and Bob Miller. The
purpose of this committee was to research and provide an analysis of a variety of issues regarding
this structure. This Committee's position is attached to this report.
Primary Issues to Consider
o What are the estimated cost implications of retaining the roof?
o What are the use implications?
o What are the other issues to consider?
Supporting Documents
o Letter from SuperValu
o Letter from Hagen Properties
o Memo regarding dome issues
o Letter from Dome Committee
o Letter from Ed Hanlon
Paul T. Steinman
Economic Development Specialist
Council Report 96 -72
Council Report 96 -72 - Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider
o What are the estimated cost implications of retaining the roof?
1. The City has spent approximately $15,000- $17,000 over and above what would
have been originally spent to retain the roof structure. These costs include buying out
the demolition contract, consultation on steel bracing, buying out the parking lot
construction contract, and constructing an access for the Boston Garden restaurant
Staff estimates that approximately $95,000- $120,000 will be needed to complete the
following improvements:
Construct parking lot $35,000- $40,000
• Provide a westerly face on the dome roof
• Lighting
• Paint interior roof
• Structural steel bracing
• Other costs associated with upgrading the
overall aesthetic appearance of the dome
structure, i.e., skylights, concrete encasement of
steel supports, metal facia treatments, etc.
$60,000 - $80,000
2. The following are estimated annual operating costs associated with retaining the roof
structure:
• Electrical $2,000- $4,000
• Insurance $ 500- $1,000
• Roof maintenance $ 500- $1,000
• Structural maintenance $ 500- $1.000
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS: $3,500- $7,000
3. Other costs:
• Roof replacement (in 5 years): $25,000- $50,000
• Painting (each 5 -7 years): $10,000- $12.000
TOTAL OTHER COSTS: $35,000- $62,000
Council Report 96 -72 - Page 3
o What are the use implications?
1. Parking:
It has been assumed that a parking lot could be constructed with the dome in place,
which would be similar to what might be provided with complete demolition.
SuperValu has stressed that the additional parking spaces should complement the
existing spaces in Lot 500 by providing flow between the two lots and having no
obstructions, such as the supporting columns of the roof. The lot design desired by the
Dome Committee, as attached to this report, is one possible scenario. Staff would need
to further examine this option.
2. Civic Use:
Retaining the roof would allow a unique opportunity for the City to provide a covered
area for civic uses. As stated in an earlier letter from Mike Tait of Tait's SuperValu, his
perspective is that such civic uses should be limited by primary dates and times of his
grocery operation. Such limitations on this dome's civic uses greatly affect the benefit
that the public might derive from a unique covered structure. The letter from the
Dome Committee indicates suggested civic use would include a fanners' market one
day per week throughout the summer months and art fairs limited to one per year.
Other civic uses are not specifically mentioned. The Dome Committee also indicated
that rained -out events could be held under the dome. Staff maintains its position that
there may be little or no benefit to spending 60,000 to 80,000 additional dollars to
retain the roof for such a limited amount of civic use.
o What are the other issues to consider?
Attached to this report are letters from Hagen Properties and SuperValu, indicating
support for demolishing the roof. The letter from Don Hagen, Hagen Properties, indicates
that the dome roof should be demolished. As owner of Tait's SuperValu building and
Richard's Liquor building, Don Hagen does not support retaining the roof structure, due
to the fact that it will create additional parking issues in this area.
The letter from SuperValu indicates, also, that they are not in support of retaining the roof
structure. SuperValu has felt that it is imperative for potential Tait's customers to view
the additional parking as part of the entire parking area, rather than a separate surface lot.
Also attached is a letter from Ed Hanlon identifying several opportunities for retaining the
dome.
Council Report 96 -72 - Page 4
Alternatives
•
•
The City Council has the following alternatives regarding this matter:
1. Approve staff recommendation.
2. Deny staffs recommendation.
3. Continue for further information. It is important that the Council understand that to delay
the decision will push the completion of the project further into middle -late summer.
S1/PERIfA II
Northern Region
P 3c
M;rre cc+ s. MN `-
612 332 4300
January 9, 1996
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the Hopkins City Council
1010 First Sheet South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hopkins City Council:
This letter is in response to the idea of keeping the Perkl "Dome" at the rear entrance to Boston
Subway. SUPERVALU INC. is officially opposed to leaving the dome in place for several
reasons. First, the intent all along was to remove the dome entirely to provide better visibility and
additional parking for downtown businesses and specifically for Mike Tait during busy hours, and
in turn, Mike would upgrade his store.
Numerous columns are required to support the roof if left in place. These columns prevent a
parking layout which is conducive to additional supermarket parking. For customers to view the
additional parking as part of Mike's parking field, the parking must be striped in the same direction
as Mike's existing parking with no obstructions to entering the new parking field.
By reinoving the roof entirely, a plan can be achieved to handle all site issues and yet provide
proper additional parking for Tait's and other downtown businesses. A single entry /exit and
landscaping as proposed clearly isolates these parking spaces for the Boston Sub and makes them
inconvenient and incompatible with SUPERVALU `s needs. Using the additional parking spaces
for Farmer's Markets and other outdoor sales activities will also be contrary to the needs of Tait's
Super Valu.
With the development of the 11th and Main Street intersection, additional pressure will be exerted
on available parking. Therefore, this additional parking should be available at all times to support .
one of the downtown areas greatest draws, Tait's Super Valu.
Another reason for removing the roof is that it will enhance the appearance of the development as a
whole. The remaining facade is unsightly and does nothing to compliment the upgraded
supermarket it faces. Finally, the City will save money by removing the dome entirely now, as well
as in maintenance of the roof over time.
I understand that Mike has attempted to be cooperative in this matter, but it is clearly in the City's
and Mike Tait's best interests to remove the dome entirely. It is for these reasons that
SUPERVALU respectfully requests that the dome be removed at the earliest possible time.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Johnson
Real Estate Representative
SUPERVALU INC
December 1, 1995
Hagen Properties
1589 Highway 7
Suite 203
Hopkins, Minnesota 55305
(612) 931 -9181 FAX:(612) 938 -8234
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the Hopkins City Council
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hopkins City Council:
I am sending you this letter today because I am the owner and managing partner
of the Tait's SuperValu building and Richard's Liquor building in Hopkins and I
have concerns regarding the expansion of the city parking lot.
I understand that the City of Hopkins is planning to leave the roof dome over
that part of the Perkl /Mason property, at the rear of the Boston Sub, which has
already been torn down. I also understand that the future use of this area could
possibly be for a Farmer's Market and /or other activities as well as parking.
I am requesting that the City Council rethink this proposal as to the
consequences of what this would do to the present and future business of Tait's
SuperValu grocery store. One of the ongoing and present problems is the
visibility of Tait's from Main Street. The removal of the building and the roof
will provide a much better and more open sight line to what will be the new front
of the grocery store. A sight line that is needed for the continued success of
Tait's.
Presently the grocery store parking lot is overcrowded on busy days and does not
have enough parking for the peak shopping hours of each week. Other activities
in the new parking area should not be allowed as it would further exasperate the
problem. The new parking area should be a continuation of the old lot and not
appear as a separate area. The entire idea of tearing down the building was to
provide more parking for the newly remodeled and expanded grocery store. The
grocery store is still the most important customer draw for downtown Hopki and
with the planned downtown additions, we need all the parking we can get.
Farmers' Markets and other outdoor type retail sales businesses are usually not
located at the doorstep of a competing tax paying business, and in other areas
without grocery stores. they pay rent the same as anyone else.
I think that in the past, Mike Tait, in a feeling of cooperation with the City
and other businesses, has not been outspoken but has registered his objections
in strong enough -words to the Council. In summary, all of the new parking area
and at all times, must be used for the maximum additional parking for your
present Hopkins businesses. Also the grocery store needs all the additional Main
Street exposure it can get. Please get rid of the roof. Thank you.
Sincerely, //
jj �J / 7 / G
Donald "F. Hagen
DFH :lh
PS11205A
CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 21, 1995
TO: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
FROM: Paul T. Steinman, Community Development Specialist
SUBJECT: Dome Issues
Jim Kerrigan and I have discussed that the following issues need
to be addressed by the Dome Committee, consisting of Ed Hanlon,
Mike Tait, and Bob Miller.
• Structure a process through Hopkins Business & Civic
Association for civic organizations to apply to use the dome
for civic activities.
• Provide a description of the types of activities that will
occur in the dome, when these events will occur, and where
parking will be accommodated for such events.
• Identify a funding source for ongoing maintenance costs
associated with retaining the dome, approximately $5,000 to.
$7,000 annually.
• Provide a dome /parking lot design that will meet the
requirements of the Committee and the City. City issues:
O Maximize number of spaces (minimum of 20)
O Prohibit exit or entrance from dome lot onto llth Avenue
O Limit exit /entrance to dome lot to one and locate as far
away from the alley entrance on llth Avenue as possible
O Incorporate Mainstreet design elements and colors
O Address roof drainage issues
O Ensure proper flow between this lot and Lot 500
O Provide a well lit, welcoming appearance
• Provide ideas for acceptable design of the dome, including
signage, lighting, landscaping, and other aesthetic issues.
I would also include, as part of any future discussion with the
Dome Committee, the issue that the City has an obligation to
provide a minimum of 20 parking spaces in this area as part of
its redevelopment agreement with Tait's SuperValu. The agreement
provides that a covenant will be recorded against the
approximately 20 parking spaces so that they will always remain
as parking for use by the general public.
FEB
•
1-96 T H U 1.6
City of ]Hopkins
c/o Paul Steinman
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, Mn.55343
cc Honorable Mayor and City Council
0 5 P. 02
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
11th 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 1 lth 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 of 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.
FEB- 1- 9 6
T H U 16
F. Use and Reactions
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 Marker, 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. Its 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 (Sam -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 Kc..'ber 10/19/95 letter)
H. Financing OngoinicMaintenance• 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
keeping it where to prove to be . gretful decision the risk would he minimal to raise it several
years from now.
P . 03
•
qii_CP,01 m embers Lot 500inexcb that
�y 0uy store will be enlarged or expanded.
•
•
April 2, 1996
Hopkins' City Council
1010 First Street South
Hopkins Mn. 55343
Re: "the Dome"
Dear Council Members;
Thank you for considering the opportunity of retaining the Dome. It is encouraging to
know that your decision will be soon.
Since the workshop there are a few question that I think could be considered;
1. If it must removed from its current location, could we consider it for the Down Town
Park parking lot? Chuck Habiger, civil engineer formerly of RLK, was at the cinema ground
breaking last week and he stated, to Brad Johnson and I, that "it would not be cost prohibitive to
relocate the Dome structure to a more desirable place nearby. To move it would be an estimated
$25,000 ( Move it; 15,000+ New foundation $10000) It could have a great deal of potential
there as well. (existing Farmers Market place and tent dance etc.) Consider that the JCs
rent a tent for aprox. $3000 each weekend for tent dances. I really do feel this Pavilion could be
very big for Hopkins. Possibly even more valuable than the Clock Plaza. Chuck Habiger also
confirmed the value of the structure as a $r15�3�facility. Why give up a such a valuable asset
? I think it is best where it is but, if not there, at keep it in Hopkins.
7S — / DO, boo
2. Have we considered the potential that Hopkins has to grow its Downtown on Sundays?
I think even Tait would agree that parking is rarely an issue on Sundays. The dome could be very
active on Sundays with Art fair type activities, building on the cultural aspect that the Art center
provides. South St. Paul has a very successful Farmers Market on Sundays only. If we designate
Sunday only use in the 1 lth Ave location, would that suffice as reason to keep this valuable
structure? I see a place for gathering with light music (i.e. one person band, free lemonade, and
a Home grown Farmers Market.) Even Stillwater would envy our Sunday traffic. Having doubts?
• Many had doubts about the straightening of Mainstreet.
Ed Hanlon
1019 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn. 55343
•
•
3. How much support to keep the Dome do you need demonstrated? Certainly more than
the two that Tait's letter implied. I suggest that the support to keep it is well founded and
representative of people who know its value and care for the Community of Hopkins..
Professional, Citizen and Patron support;
o Architects / Visual Artist; *Jack Anderson, +Kevin Locke, *Terry Jacobsen
o Former Council persons; *Bob Miller, + Nelson Berg, + Chuck Kritzler
o1-1BCA board of Directors, position Statement.
o Sun. Sailor, position statement 11/20/96
o Petition of Patrons and Residents over 300.
o Majority of immediate neighboring businesses to the Dome; ( exception is Tait)
* Boston Garden. * Outdoorsman + Simply Hancrafted + Community Credit
+ Mr Office + Everyones Hair + Online Computers + Sunlife Tanning
+ Frame Design + LaLaLand Toys + Hopkins Hair + Photo Quick
+ Donavans Furniture * Preferred Travel + Electric Dragonland
+ Sisinnis Bakery + Glenrose * Telstar / Merrian Park + Tub n'Shower
( *= wrote a letter + = signed petition )
4. Has the staff looked at this as a TIF investment or has it been considered strictly as an
"out of pocket" cost? It would, most likely, add value to all the neighboring properties.
5. Can the investment be minimized by allowing some of the esthetic improvements to be
done by Local citizen involvement? Terry Jacobsen and Barry Lawrence have already volunteered
their services. I would lead the charge on this if you would like. Likewise 1 would volunteer the
electricity to operate additional lighting and piped in music.
6. Most common question posed to me by patrons. "Why take it down if it is there ?"
"Why does the city want to destroy such a valuable asset ?"
7. With Taits concern for visibility out of the way, why would his opinion of its beauty be
an issue? The mechanical devices on my roof that are situated toward Tails will be visible and
are potentially more unsightly.
•
•
8. If the Dome is removed, whose needs will be of primary concem in terms of using the
new parking facility? Would the Art Center patrons not be permitted to use the new lot?
9. Is it a concern that it may be a benefit to my business more than others?
It would not surprise me that there may be those that feel that way. It seems that this concem is
outlined in green, but there just the same. Yes, I do believe that it would benefit Boston Garden,
covered parking and all. But, It also takes away from the rear visibility of my restaurant. To me
the benefits equal the liabilities. However it is important that you know that I do NOT intend to
use it for anything except parking. Concerns that I would try to use it for covered outdoor
dinning are unfounded. Why then do 1 champion the effort to save it? Perhaps because I see it
every day. In all sincerity, I feel it is in the best interest of the community of Hopkins that the
Pavilion be maintained.
I feel that we have a golden opportunity to get a whole lot more for the investment in the
"Dome" project. The ratios are very advantages to the city. With all the developments in this
"Small Town at Heart" that are now becoming reality this concept has the potential of making all
our "Big thinking" so much more.
Sincerely,
Ed
ce :pkins Zoning and Planning
Hopkins Business and Civic Association Board
Dome Committee
04/12/1996 16 :10 HKS Associates, Inc. * *** 612 659 0891 P.02
April 2, 1996
Hopk s' City Council
1010 irst Street South
Hopk , MN 55343
RE: a Dome
Dear ' uncil Members;
I am icing this letter in response to a letter submitted to you by Ed Hanlon which contain
save . inaccuracies relating to a conversation I had with Ed several weeks ago and a subsequent
phone nversation. Ed asked me what the cost would be for relocating the dome structure to the
Down own parking lot as a permanent structure for the Rasberry festival's tent dance and other
activi ' es. 1 contacted a contractor who has the capability to move a structure that size and
resew • a cost of from $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 for moving it. 1 estimated the cost of
cons sting new foundation supports for the structure at around 510,000.00.
Q Ed s.: d that a contractor had told him that the dome structure was worth approximately
'!� $250, 0.00 and he asked me if I concurred with that. I explained to Ed that a new, simple
`Dull Building' structure of 10,000 s.f. would cost around $40,000.00 and if the City wanted a
more rebitecturally significant structure; with in reason, a good budget number to use would be
amun' $75,000.00.1 specifically told Ed that the structure may have a salvage value of around
$4,001 00 to $5,000.00.
I hop his letter helps to clear up some of the confusion and miss information that has risen from
this is e. If uny of you have any further question or would like more information please feel free
to giv me a call.
Very ' y your;
HKS . SSOCIAT
Chary . F. Habiger, ALA
Direct r, Environmental Services
cc: Pa 1 Steinman
Crwi1. ENGINEERING
LANDSCAPE ARfdrrrls4l'URL'
ENVIRONMENTAL. SERVICES
MEAN PLANNING
HKS ASSOCIATES INC
521 sAvsioNi AVENUE SUITS 320
St. PAIL, MN 55114
VIIUMV: 6*2I6594732 VAX 6121659.6691