CR 91-03 Movie Theater Proposal Review
* . m
,.
.y '"
December 10, 1990 o P K \ "" Council Report:91-3
.
MOVIE THEATER PROPOSAL REVIEW FOR THE BURSCH SITE
proposed Action.
Staff recommends the adoption of the following motion: "Move to
desiqnate the Bursch site for the construction of a movie theater
subject to the conditions as recommended by staff."
If conditions change, staff recommends the redevelopment of the 10th
Avenue site. While staff believes this is a good project for the
City, several concerns still exist which will need to be addressed
prior to executing a redevelopment agreement.
Overview.
Recently Mark Senn, Marcus Corporation, approached the City with a
concept to construct a movie theater within downtown Hopkins. Staff
has met with the developer on several occasions to discuss the
,Cii project.
-
At the December 18 HRA/City Council meeting, the preliminary TIF
application was approved. During this same meeting the City Council
. directed staff to prepare redevelopment agreements for both the 10th
Avenue and Bursch site. While these agreements have been prepared,
there are a few sections which require revisions prior to submission
to the City Council/HRA.
. Originally staff recommended the project be undertaken on the 10th
Avenue site. While this site is logical from a planning and
redevelopment perspective, the consequences associated with its
redevelopment has led staff to recommend the Bursch site for this
project. This staff report identifies issues and staff recommended
conditions relevant to either of these two sites.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What are the advantages/disadvantages of the Bursch site?
o What are the advantages/disadvantages of the 10th Avenue site?
o What are the timing concerns of the project?
o How would the property be acquired?
o What financing issues remain?
o What is the present status of the property owners and tenants?
o What concerns does staff have about the project?
o What is the impact to the HRAjCity as relates to the use of TIF
for this project?
o What are the risks to the HRA/City concerning this project?
o What comments did the advisory groups have?
o What other site options are available?
o What future options are available for additional parking?
o What are the parking requirements requested by the developer?
o What conditions are recommended by staff in conjunction with the
undertaking of this project?
. supportinq Information
o Alternatives o Letter from Benshoof
o Preliminary Site Plan o Letter from Gary stout
Brian Fritsinger,
Economic Development Specialist
I
. .
.
i
CR: 91-3
. Page 2
Backqround
The developer is proposing that a 4-screen, 1300 seat movie theater be
developed within downtown Hopkins. The building would be
approximately 2+ 'stories in height. The seating for each screen will
range from 266 to 378 seats. The theater will be a second run theater
which typically has costs of $1.00 - $2.00 per movie.
The developer had identified two sites upon which the theater could be
developed. The site for which the preliminary TIF application was
approved is on 10th Avenue South, across the street from the parking
ramp. This site includes the three parcels located just to the south
of the alley.
The site which staff is recommending is the vacant Bursch restaurant
site. This site is located on the east side of 8th Avenue South.
Both sites are located within TIF District 1-1.
The developer is proposing that the city/HRA acquire the necessary
property and assemble the si te. It is proposed. that the ci ty /HRA
would use TIF to accomplish this and will then write the land down to
an agreed upon market value which generally reflects the market value
of the raw land. Tax increment would also be used for any tenant
. relocation. The developer has stated that he will pay for all
associated demolition costs.
The developer is proposing that the land payment for his purchase of
the subject property to be $100,000 and to have the payment deferred
for 5 years, with repayment to occur in years 6-10. The developer has
stated that this land payment will be the same for either site.
Analysis
Based on the above information, the HRA/City Council has the following
issues to consider:
o what are the advantages/disadvantages of the Bursch site?
Based upon discussions with the Hopkins Business Council and the
Zoning & Planning Commission, it appears there is more of a consensus
for the redevelopment of the Bursch site over the 10th Avenue site.
Marcus corporation has stated that the tenant would be willing to
utilize this site for the project.
However, at this time several concerns (parking in particular) have
been raised regarding the redevelopment of this site. If the city
Council/HRA would like to pursue the redevelopment of the Bursch site
for this project, the following issues need to be considered:
_'. Advantaqes
1. Currently a vacant building
The building has been vacant for over one year. This would
decrease the costs to the city for acquisition and tenant
relocation.
.
CR: 91-3
. Page 3.
2. Potential lower acauisition costs
Again, the lack of a tenant should lower the associated
acquisition costs. Discussions with the real estate agent
have indicated a willingness to sell by the owner.
3. Better ability to meet time lines set within lease
The likelihood for condemnation on the Bursch site are reduced
when compared to the 10th Avenue site. with this concern
minimized, the timelines established by the tenant and
developer become more realistic for the city to meet.
Condemnation may still be necessary on the Bursch site in
order to clear title, but the chances of it being a friendly
condemnation are much better.
4. No potential condemnation/Willina Seller
The owner of this property currently has it listed with a
local real estate agency. Staff is assuming that if the
property owners price can be met, that he will be a willing
seller of the site.
5. site larae enough for theater development
The site is large enough .forthe proposed theater. No
variances would have to be obtained to construct the theater.
. 6. Amount of necessary building repairs cause it to have minimal
value
While the building does have some value as a restaurant use,
individuals interested in purchasing the site have indicated
that the costs to rehabilitate the building are excessive.
This supports the decision to demolish the building for
another use.
7. Adeouate parkino??
The developer has stated that the site and s~rrounding parking
is sufficient to meet the needs of the tenant. Staff has some
questions to the validity of this statement.
8. Direct access on 8th Avenue to County Road #3
The site is located on 8th Avenue which has direct access to a
signalized intersection on County Road #3. The developer and
tenant agree that this direct access to a major arterial would
benefit the theater.
9. site not large enough to construct arocery store
Some questions have been raised about this site being used for
the grocery store if the site north of Mainstreet becomes
unfeasible. Staff has determined that the amount of space
necessary for the grocery store, based upon preliminary site
. plans, is not available on this site.
-.. - --..-------- ",.. .~""--'--'::^
i
"
CR: 91-3
. Page 4
Disadvantages
1. Lack of parking
Parking appears to be the major issue that needs to be
addressed. If this is a problem that cannot be resolved,
another site or not proceeding with the project may be the
other two alternatives. ** (See letter from Benshoof &,
Associates)
2. Lose potential restaurant use
Currently an interested party is working with the owner to
purchase this site for a restaurant. If the theater were to
be constructed, it is highly unlikely that this site could
accommodate a restaurant. Discussions with the interested
party have indicated that if they were to acquire the
building,they will probably approach the City for assistance.
3. Shift away from the core CBD
In many peoples mind, this location is a shift to the east
from the core CBD. In discussing the issue with steve Kotvis,
former employee of Laventhol & Horwath, he does not see this
as a major shift away from the CBD.
4. Conflict with surrounding residential uses?
The site is located to the eastern most part of the commercial
. business district. The properties located across 8th avenue
have a distinct residential flavor. With the amount of
parking necessary for this project, some spill off into this
residential area can be expected.
5. Lack of spin off development potential?
Several of the property owners in the CBD have been excited
about the project in hopes that it would help fill up vacant
buildings. The shift to the Bursch site would not provide
these owners the immediate impact they were hoping for.
0 What are the advantages/disadvantaqes of the 10th Avenue site?
Advantaqes
1. Available parking/take advantaqe of ramp.
The parking ramp has 380 spaces within it. If this site were
utilized, there should be minimal conflict with the parking
system. ** (See letter from Benshoof & Associates).
2. Centrally located in the CBD core.
On numerous occasions it has been pointed out to staff that
the core downtown is from 8th to 11th Avenues. This site
would be located in the heart of this area.
'. 3. Would be a higher/better use for site~
Currently, three small buildings (2 office and 1 residential
home) are located on the site. With the sites proximity to
the ramp this makes the site desirable for a more intense
development.
i
-, ,
CR: 91-3
. Page 5
4. Less additional land needed for parking.
Due to the close proximity .of the parking ramp, n.o additional
land is necessary for parking. ** (See Benshoof Letter).
5. Will spur develo~ment in surrounding properties.
Several vacant buildings and developable properties are near
this site. Owners and developers have indicated a strong
possibility that those sites would be filled if the project
occurs.
Disadvantages
1. High tenant displacement/rel.ocation costs
This site includes 3 occupied parcels of property. A total of
8 tenants are located on this site. Several of these tenants
have very heavy machinery which would need to be moved and re-
set. This adds to the already high costs of acquisition.
2. Removal of viable businesses
It is felt the site is under utilized and that its
redevelopment would serve the public purpose. However, two of
the properties are office buildings ,which are very well
occupied. The removal of these businesses must be weighed
against the resulting c.ommunity benefit from having a theater.
. 3. Potential Condemnation
If all of the properties can n.ot be acquired through
negotiation and the HRAjCouncil wished to pursue the pr.oject,
c.ondemnation would be required. If it is determined that a
c.ondemnation is necessary, this process would have to begin
during January if the developer is to meet the timing
requirements established with the tenant. Staff is
rec.ommending that it condemnation is required, such a process
not be pursued until the developer has secured financing and
acquired .options for two of the pr.operties.
Of the three property owners, at least one has publicly stated
their opposition to selling their property. One other has
expressed some concerns about the projects impact on his
business. Should a condemnation be necessary, the City will
have to be aware of several risks:
- Public perception
- possible additional project costs
- Length .of time necessary to complete
4. Inadequate site size
It can be argued that the size of this site is not able to
meet the needs for this type of project. This justification
. is based upon the items detailed in the issues which the
Zoning and Planning Commission must review. These items
include a front and rear yard setback variance and also an
alley vacation.
.................~.--- --------
CR: 91-3
.. Page 6
o What are the timing concerns of the project?
If the HRA is in favor of this project, ... the process for implementation
needs to start fairly soon. The lease agreement the developer has
with the tenant specifies a June 1 construction start date with a
October .1 completion date. These time issues have been set by the
developer and the tenant, not the city. If the City Council were to
direct staff to redevelop the 10th Avenue site, the following
activities would have to occur no later than February 19.
1. Approval of redevelopment agreement.
2. Developer must secure financing commitment.
3. Developer must secure option(s).
4. Any action on a condemnation, should it be required, must be
started.
The developer has stated that it may be possible to have the theater
tenant adjust the start/completion construction dates somewhat.
Should the HRA and developer not be able to perform in the time frame
identified above or receive an extension from the June 1 date, the
tenant would have the ability to withdraw from the lease agreement.
In discussing this matter with Holmes and Graven, they recommend that
. should a condemnation be required the development agreement detail the
following:
- The developer agree to indemnify the HRA for costs if the
condemnation is unsuccessful.
- Allow for the theater lease to be amended to allow for the
conveyance of property by the HRA for up to 200 days beyond June
1-
These timing issues would remain with the redevelopment of the Bursch
site. However, assuming the presence of a willing seller and the lack
of tenant relocation issues, it appears that it would not be as
critical .to the projects completion.
o Bow would the property be acquired?
Staff is proposing that either prior to entering into a redevelopment
agreement or as a condition detailed in the redevelopment agreement,
the developer negotiate purchase options with the existing building
owner(s). The developer has been in contact with all of the property
owners on the 10th Avenue site in an attempt to negotiate options for
the properties purchase. Also, prior to the January 8 meeting, the
developer has been informed by staff that he should contact Russ
Bursch.
.
,
CR: 91-3
. Page 7
Option agreements secured would be transferable to the HRA by the
developer. Should the developer not be able to secure the options
through negotiations on all or a portion of the properties, the HRA
would have the following options:
1. Terminate any further action on the project.
2. Implement condemnation on the sUbject property.
3. Attempt to negotiate a sale by City staff.
Staff is recommending that prior to approval of a redevelopment
agreement for the 10th Avenue site, or as a condition of the
redevelopment agreement, there be a condition that an option agreement
be negotiated by the developer with ,at least two of the properties in
the subject area. This would limit any condemnation to at. most one
parcel. As part of an agreement for the Bursch site, staff recommends
that control of this site be secured by the developer through the same
option arrangement.
0 What financing issues remain?
There area several items in regards to the financing of this project
which still need to be determined:
. - Developers ability to secure project financing from bank. The
current real estate market is not favorable to allow the
developer to secure financing. Even though the developer has a
signed lease, staff believes it could take a period of time for
the developer to secure financing.
- The amount and timinq of payment for land purchased by Marcus.
Gary stout, a consultant the City has used, is recommending that
no final decision be made on this issue until the developer has
obtained financing. The developer will still be expected to pay
the $100,000. The review by the bank would indicate if any
additional funds could be paid to the city. At that time, staff
will review the proforma.
0 What is the present status of the property owners and tenants?
At this point in time the owners of the 10th Avenue properties have
been contacted by the developer. Property owners surrounding this
site were notified of the concept review by the Zoning & Planning
commission.
For the Bursch site the developer has stated he would be contacting
Russ Bursch concerning the project. Also, as surrounding property
. owners have not had the option to comment on the possible use of this
site, they have been notified concerning the January 8th meeting.
-~_. --,-. -'-'._~
CR: 91-3
~ Page 8
p 0 What concerns does staff have about the project?
At this time staff is concerned about the following items:
- lack of options secured by the developer
- amount and timing of land payment
- developers ability to acquire financing
- ability to meet tenant/developer timing deadline
- site concerns
- environmental issues
\ - condemnation concerns
\ - parking
o What is the. impact to the BRA/City as relates to the use of tax
increment for this project?
1. Bursch Site
The staff is estimating a project cost of approximately $525,000 to
the HRA which would include property acquisition. staff envisions the
project costs being paid in the following manner:
$500,000 - Redevelopment Bond Proceeds allocated to the project.
. $ 25,000 - Excess increment available in CBD redevelopment
district.
A portion of this pUblic expenditure would be repaid as follows:
- approximately $135,000 in todays dollars will be generated in
tax increment revenues over the remaining 9 years of the tax
increment redevelopment district.
- The developer will provide an approximate land payment of
$100,000.
The tax increment generated and the land payment will not be
sufficient to pay the total possible cost of this project ($525,000 -
$235,000 = $290,000 shortfall). However, staff believes the project
deserves consideration for the following reasons:
- This project will have a significant impact on the amount of
people who visit the downtown. This in turn should stimulate
other development or business.
- There is sufficient excess tax increment in this redevelopment
district to fund any "gap".
- The subject site is an expensive site to redevelop because it
. is presently occupied by buildings. Because of the financing
structure of the theater project, only limited land costs can
be absorbed by the developer.
CR: 91-3
. Page 9
2. 10th Avenue
The staff is estimating a project cost of approximately $750,000 to
the HRA which would include the following:
- Property Acquisition
- Tenant &. property owner relocation
This figure could be substantially higher if a condemnation is
required.
staff envisions the project costs being paid in the following manner:
$500,000 - Redevelopment Bond Proceeds allocated to the project.
$250,000 - Excess increment available in CBD redevelopment
district.
A portion of this public expenditure would be repaid as follows:
- approximately $270,000 in todays dollars will be generated in
tax increment revenues over the remaining 9 years of the tax
increment redevelopment district.
- The developer will provide a land payment of approximately
$100,000.
- The tax increment generated and the land payment will not be
sufficient to pay the total possible cost of this project ($750,000 ~
$370,000 = $380,000 shortfall). The reasons why this project can be
justified are the same as listed above under the Bursch site
information.
0 What are the risks to the HRA/city concerning the project?
10th Avenue site
- The project is completed but is unsuccessful. In this
situation the city would have a building located in the
downtown with limited re-use potential. Also, under this
situation the city would potentially lose tax increment income.
- The potential exists that a condemnation will be required to
assemble all of the properties. It appears that two of the
three subject property owners are willing to consider selling
through a negotiated sale.
- The HRA could incur costs through relocation and any required
condemnation, only to have the project terminate for one of the
following reasons:
. 1. Court decision against the condemnation
2. Environmental contamination found on the subject site.
3. Developer does not secure adequate governmental approval.
4. Developer loses tenant for financing reasons.
5. Additional condemnation required.
- Project costs could be sUbstantially above what is projected by
staff. This situation could occur if there are environmental
problems or if the condemnation is necessary.
;
CR: 91-3
. Page 10
The staff will work with the HRA's redevelopment attorney to structure
a redevelopment agreement which protects, as best possible, the HRA.
However, there will probably be some financial exposure to the HRA no
matter what guarantees and protecti ve language is placed wi thin the
redevelopment agreement.
Bursch site
The major concern with the Bursch site appears to relate to the impact
of a movie theater on parking in this area. The two questions most
relevant appear to be: !
L Are there adequate .parking spaces available in the area for a
movie theater?
2. How does the parking needs and patron usage of a theater
affect surrounding businesses as relates to their parking.
The parking impact study which is proposed, hopefully will be able to
answer these questions.
o What comments did the advisory qroupshave?
\
. At the December 18 City council meeting, staff informed the Council
that the Hopkins Business Council, the parking Commi ttee and the
Zoning & planning commission would all review this proposal prior to
the January 8 meeting. The following is each groups comments:
I
\
Parkinq Committee -Did not review the item due to a lack of Quorum.
They will review it at their January 16 meeting.
Hopkins Business Council - At this meeting, approximately 7
businessman were. present. Overall, the group was in favor of
redeveloping the Bursch site. Comments included the following:
- Better access; it solves an existing problem by redeveloping
the Bursch site; fills a vacant site and it helps round out
the downtown.
Planninq & zoning commission - 4 members of the coriunission were
present at the meeting. The Commission was in favor of the theater
. proj ect and preferred the Bursch site subj ect to the parking issue
being resolved. Comments included:
_ prefer the Bursch site based upon publics comments at Z & P
meeting. (Several of the 10th Avenue site property owners were
present and spoke about their concerns.)
_ concern about the amount of parking on the Bursch site and
. impact on abutting residential areas.
. - what are maintenance costs associated with acquiring
additional parking?
- if building owners are unwilling to sell, don't undertake 10th
Avenue. .
_ concern expressed about availability of parking at Burschs but
more concerned about the removal of existing businesses and
buildings for the 10th Avenue site.
,
CR: 91-3
. Page 11
o What other site options are available?
There are three other site options which staff can determine to be
adequate to meet the needs for a.movie theater. They are:
1- Suburban Chevrolet - This site is a prime redevelopment site
for the downtown. It is also adjacent to the parking ramp.
The problem with this site is the timing in regards to its
availability.
2. Grocery Store - This is the current Tait's grocery store site.
Again, the timing of it becoming vacant is a problem. A
question can also be raised about parking availability.
3. Downtown Park - The opportunity to do the movie theater may be
lost if any of the above two options are chosen. However, the
downtown park provides a site with ample square footage and
proximity to the parking ramp.
The costs associated with the redevelopment of this site would
also be much less than with any of the sites mentioned
. previously. One of the concerns with this site, is its. impact
on the downtown, especially for Music in the Park. One
solution to this problem would be to acquire the Bursch site
or a portion thereof, to construct a new park.
With the Mainstreet reconstruction, the parking on the corner
of 9th & Mainstreet is being proposed to be redeveloped as a
park. It is possible to take some additional parking. in lot
#300 and make it a park and combine it with the Mainstreet
park to cover any loss in the downtown park.
0 What future options are available for additional parking?
The analysis provided by Benshoof & Associates was a very preliminary
study. Staff has some questions about the validity of the shortages
shown. A more in depth study would be necessary to determine the
precise shortage. If the Bursch site is selected for redevelopment
and a study proves that additional parking may be needed, there are
several options available.
- New parking will be placed on Mainstreet after reconstruction.
- Additional parking will be provided in the grocery store
redevelopment.
- The strip of land next to the Elks can be acquired to add
. parking.
- A one deck ramp could be constructed on lot #200 at a cost of
$500,000 - $1,000,000.
o What are the parking requirements requested by the developer?
Within the lease, the tenant has made a request that City owned
parking facilities within a one block area of the theater provide free
;
CR: 91-3
. Page 12
parking for up to 3 hours during evening hours and weekends. The
developer is also requesting that the City guarantee the number of
parking spaces available within this same area.
These requests would stay in effect through the term of the lease
signed with the theater tenant. These items still need to be reviewed
by the Parking Committee. This review should occur on January 16.
0 What oonditions are reoommended by staff in oonjunction with the
undertaking of this project?
L That if the Bursch site is selected, a parking impact study be
undertaken by Benshoof & Associates and the developer agrees
to pay 1/2 the cost of such a study. A finding of significant
negative parking impacts would provide cause to terminate any
further action. It is anticipated this study would be
completed by February 5.
2. That a final tax increment application is submitted and
approved.
3. That the developer provides a check for $1,000 in accordance
. with the tax increment policy for payment of legal costs in
conjunction with preparation of the development agreement.
4. That the developer secures approval from the City/HRA to
provide adequate pUblic parking ina manner and location as
required by the developer and the theater tenant necessary to
make the project feasible.
5. That a redevelopment agreement is developed in a manner
acceptable to both Marcus Corporation, the Hopkins HRA and the
City of Hopkins and is executed by both parties.
Prior to any property acquisition, condemnation or major
expense by the Hopkins HRA the following ,is required and will
be included within the redevelopment agreement:
a. ) Marcus Corporation secures purchase option or options on
all or a majority of the subject parcels. These purchase
options shall have, at a minimum, the following
conditions:
. transferable to the HopkinsHRA or city of Hopkins
for a minimum period of 6 months renewable for an
additional 6 months.
. purchase price shall be based upon an independent
appraisal acceptable to the HRA or the fair market value
as established by the City Assessor.
. b. ) Marcus Corporation shall secure a commitment for financing
of the project.
'.
CR: 91-3
. Page 13
c. ) That if condemnation is required (not applicable for
Bursch site as no condemnation action is anticipated),
that the theater lease be required to be modified. The
modification for the construction start date and
possession delivery date shall provide adequate time for
the HRA to secure title to the subject property.
d. ) That Marcus corporation secures all necessary permits and
approvals from the City of Hopkins and the Hopkins HRA.
e. ) That for either site, the purchase price shall be
$100,000. For the Bursch site, this figure shall be based
on a building footprint not to exceed 20,000 square feet.
Any square footage required to construct the building in
excess of 20,000 square feet shall be purchased at a cost
of $5.75 per square foot. The timing of the payment shall
be identified in the redevelopment agreement. At a
minimum it shall be 'completely paid within 10 years of the
start of the project. The developer will pay for all
associated demolition costs for either site.
f. ) Marcus Corporation meets all other conditions and
requirements as may be determined necessary and
. appropriate by the City of Hopkins, the Hopkins HRA, and
specifically identified within the redevelopment
agreement.
g. ) That if the Bursch property is designated for the project,
the redevelopment agreement shall identify in a manner
acceptable to the HRA, the-use, ownership, and operation
of the remaining property on this site. The property in
question is that which is not necessary for construction
of the building or required setbacks.
Alternatives
Based on the above information the City Council/HRA has the following
alternatives to consider:
1. Move to designate the Bursch site for thec9nstruction of a
movie theater subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
2. Move to designate the 10th Avenue site for the construction of
a movie theater subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
3. Continue the item for further information from staff. The
adoption of this motion will 'put this project in a precarious
.- position due to timing limitations dictated by the developer.
~he staff and developer need to begin the various
'implementation steps as soon as possible in order to meet the
developers time table. This motion would cause the prescribed
process to begin later than detailed within the report.
4. Direct staff to attempt to redevelop an alternative site for
the movie theater. This would be a site other than the Bursch
site or the 10th Avenue site.
.
.,
CR: 91-3
Page 14
.
5. Deny the application and direct staff to continue to work on
the selection of a site which will not put the city at a large
risk. '
6. Direct staff to take no further action in regards to working
with Marcus Corporation on the movie theater proposal
.
.
\,
.
.--
, ~ (85) 6" ~ ~ ~
'0 " '_ \0 ~ ~ -l6 (118) \0 \.c}
~ 17(84), . (72)4, ~ kJ ~ - (110)6 ~ ~19 (97) ---~ ~ ....
...... ~ ...
G 16(83) (73)5 ~ ::::s ~ 16(100) ~ 15 (/17) (I1I)7.~ h) 18(96) (86) 7 ~ ~ 18 (120 (109)7
- - ,_ P-t'_- --
i~ 15(82) -- ~ ~ /5(99) ~ ~I THEATER --
SITES (119), (110) 8
.,4(81) ~;;7 - ~ 0) 14 (98) (94) 7 (118 (I II) 9
, -
0) <;) ~ " ..~ . -
~ 13(80) (75)8 ~ 8 "" - Pr.oposed ~ 15 (117
2 12 (79) (76) 9 ~ ~ 12 (97) (95) 9 ~ 13 ~134)( )- " - IA"'16
\\I ". ---c::t - - - -. III Alternatives
~ 11(78) (77) 10 S? ~ /I (96) 10 ...... .. -/
'STREET . NOR0
.
~ 24(54 (41l1 ~ _2..1 _I ,-,- -1_ <;) 19(60) (42)1 ~
~
o 23(53 (42) 2 <;) I I ~
~ i- ......22-..J L _2_ _ (43) 2
~ 22(52) (43) 3 (0 I ~ (44) . <;)
h) 20(77 I<)
I __ ".c._
3 21(5~) 4. ~. 19(76 (62) 2 (4q) 4 (0
t\j
-_..:..- .-
l 20{50 (44)5 . ~ 18(75) (63) 3 (46) 5 ~
I ,
--.-- --- ......
j 19(49 6 f (64) 4 t\j IG(57) (Q
17 . .....
---
,<;> I'" . I (Q ~ 16(74) ~ 15(5S}
,.til.8. I 7 ......
- - - /- - - ~ - -..... -t3/if - -- - -- - ,. -- -
17 " 8 ~ " 17 (I /s <;) f /5 ~ 14.(6,5)
- --i r t4~ - - ....l, _ _11_ - _::: 0) . 14 (73 - -'3" ,,:",
~....JI . ..r :!6 9
I I 12 .
~'4 1~'2111 10 (54
) ( I' (46 I\}
~ ~ :::: .~ " " "
~ ::::::,:::: I~ (53) AVENUE
I
[
I
-
,27 1 I c
7 - - -1' Subject ~ -
26 1
_ _ _' -3 " 9
r- -- 26(116 9
-~":-::.H~~2 10 I -...
~ 25(1/5 . (102)10, <\
". ., I . .'
;.~4 '. . 43) I
- "'::" - ,...-;}f-- -,,~ _24(114 (103)11 ....
.:.'__ .;. _' I (44) I~. h) ;:I:::: a: ID. -, 2~ - {lQ4l(2 ~ ..;:1:
22'; I (45)13 ~ J..::
---~ . cy Q) ,,- -- -I' (138) . .~
21 'I ;/
" .14 ...........
9(72) (67) 14 ---'r---.-- . 'J I<) _' 21 (II :3,." 1(106)14 '. ~ ......
20 " I . /5 ......
~
J(71) (68)/5 ---- ~ _ _ ~o II 15 I -
/9 (I~3) ~ 76'- '0
I\.. -.,,---...;. 'It
'(70) (69) 16 ---I .) ,,_ ::(~(y_ _ 16- j ~
181(11 (49) /7
STREET __ III JJs
~ (f02! I SO.
.~ I: .
..... 18 I I ,", ' -2 I 10 - I,
. (103)2 ~ - -:- - I r':'- - ,- - '- - f- g
<;) - _I~ J L _ ~ _I I /9
;.,...., (f~3 _ _, ~ _ r 1 3 'I 3 I I
- --- ::::: ~~
1If) IS.' :~29~ - L _ _ J (6) \'
,4
----
I/O) ---1---_,_ J I
-- - - _ ~'4 II 5
)9) 6 /3 -, .- - 6' - I \.
>8) (05) 7" ~ ' I (5) . ,
I
"
7\ I -- - - ,,\\\
~ .--
, ~Or~J' i.-t1.-'
j .... v' .....\~t.... TEL : 612-'~lill.-Cil9~~ Dee 13.. '~'ll) 12 : :; 2 1',10. 0 (: 4 ;:,:::"
" -;
. To: Jilll Kerrigal1 ~IA
From: Gary stoutP,
Re: Movie Project
Date: 12/13/90 -
I am responding to yourreguest. t.o :P'flV 10I." ftn advisory opinion on
the land payment for the movie project. The developer has now
basically agreed to pay "market vnlue" for the parcel. This is
bel invcd to be in thE- range 01' $100 (1)00. "jlfte crd y 1-.pmainin9
question i8 the form of pfiyment foz: that. land. NC'i'mally I the land
payment would all be made "up frontH. However I .hl t.his case., at
this time, the developer is unwilling to makQ that. canu-nitment.
In rCviE-Wling the developer's planr> and ::!lpec:s and CO$t, estimates it
is very clear that they are not finalized ,at tld,spoint.
Therefore, the developer has to use very preliminary "outside" (or
maximum reasonably expected) costs. While this is a le9itim~te
approach from his point of view, it doe..s not appeiu' reasonable for
the City to nlake a final decision:cegarding .. up front" or financed
payment for the land based on this very prelimi.nary i.nf()rmat~ion.
Fortunately, tha.financial information tht;it is available for this
I project will be refined in the near future. In ordez' for the City
~ to consider proceeding with the condemnation,' it 'will be necessary
I. for the developer to obtain a financing .comrnitment. In order to
obtain a financing commitment, it will be necessary for the the
1 developer to refine these numbers so that they can he underwritten
by the financial institution providing the commit:rnent. Itappears
I that this current problem of absence of adequate financial data
~ fo:CCityreview will resolve itself in' the very near future.
Therefore, I reconunend:
1. 'l'hat the City not proceed with condemnation or major project
j expenditures until such ti.me as the developel~has obtained'
financing. (The Developer agrees with this)
I
2. That the City not proceed with a finaldeeision re'.;larding, the
method of payment 'for the land until such time as the
developer has obtained financil1g. (rfhe peveloperagrees with
this) .
3. That the City use the financial package, as submitted and
approved by the financial institution 'making the lending
commitment, to uriderwrlte the extent of the pot.ential land
financing subsidy and to det,erminea fet1Bj ble rIlf.::t.hod, of
payment.
(The Developer has agreed to make this information available.)
~, In this way, the City: can avoid the expe.nse of condemnation
. ~~~ . prior to having a financed and feasible project; can avoid making
- decisions about" land financina subsidies until better estimates
- _and third party underwriting opinions are nvailable; can maintain
it's option to provide reasonable levels of financial and
financing assistance to fill any financing gaps in the project at
that time; and can still obtain "fair market value" for the land~
~
". - 't F))I.) .HK TEL: l:,12-941-(11 ~l5 Dte 1 .~5 , ':1 C! 12:52 No.004 P.03
- .
.. ,;
.'
Jim,
-
This didn't change the other one that much, and Na.r:k said he would
be satisfied with this. He wants t.o defer the land issue as well.
Although he has now conunitted to a payment of $lOO,OOO--which has
gone from loose gpeculative talk to a verbal commitment. Also,
that is a long way from the "fn~e land" place whf~re you started,
which you can feel good about,
tr Mark said he had no problem ,.,ith putt.ing the land cost into the
[\V) '-;::q?lnortgage request (and. letting the bank take it out if it exceeded
/ - the loan-to-value rat1-o, etc.). SOl that shouldn It be a problem.
The Bank may very well not want to finance the land; which is OK
if they are not financing a lot of "fluff"--which \lIe will now know
with this agreement.
This defers the issue until financial underwriting.
See ~he comments on my other note faxed to YOll earlier: this
morn1.ng.
Als01 I QQDt~nue to predict that the Bank will want to underwrite
/. as little as possible, and that Mark can pay something for the
land, and then start making payments the first: -y-oar, rather than
five years out.
rt will be interesting to see if Mark can get this thing financed.
f Hopefully, you can keep this from being a precedent with McHale.
Also, good luck on the site issues. ~...-'..
i
I
!
I
(
.
~ B~NSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No. 612 944 9322 Dee 27,90 13:39 P.02
.
- ~ .b..JI... . .....
. W BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND use CONSULTANTS
7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. SUITE 119 f EDEN PRAIAle. MINNESOTA 55344/ (612) 944-7590 f FAX (612) 944-9322
. , ~
December 27, 1990 fI€FER TO FILl::.: 90-54
MEMORANDUM
.-\;
TO: Tom Harmening, City of. Hopkins
FROM: James A. BenShOOf~A8
RE: Parking Implications of Proposed Theater in Downtown Area
Purpose and Background
Two alternative sites in the downtown area of ~kins are being considered for
development of a multi-screen theater with a to of 1,300 seats. The pUflX'?se of this
. memorandum is to review the parking implications of this proposed development-.;to
determine jf sufficient parking spaces are available at the two sites to accommodate the
\ proposed theater.
,
i
One candidate site for the theater (referred to as the 10th Ave. site) is on the east side
.\i of J Oth Ave. south of Main Street. The second candidate location (referred to as the
Bursch's site) is the former Burschts Restaurant building on the east side of 8th Ave.
. south of Main Street. As request~ by staff, we have performed a basic review
regarding the adequa~ of parking to serve a theater use on those two sites. For this
purpose, we have us tr,Plcal parking demand characteristrics for a theater and have
referred to parking supp y and demand characteristics as ~resented in our r,axkin~
System Analysis report submitted to the City in October 986.
Parking Demand for Theater
The c:k parking demand for a theater tYRically occurs during the evening hours. For
this. usy time period, the 1986 report uti ized a parking demand rate for theaters of
0.33 parking space per seat, with a 25 percent reduction factor for walking, transit, and
multi-purpose trips. ApplYing this base rate and the 25 percent reduction factor to the
proposed 1,300 seat theater results in a demand for 322 parking spaces. This result
correlates clO~k with the 328 space demand that is claculated uslOg. methodologies
presented in jn~ GeneratiQO. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987.
,
-.
_ .'." ' _."._~.,__,_.__"_~"~",_....._..._"",_,,,___,, c._...~__"_'. 'c-_."::-"
--
'. BE)'1SHOOF Jiissoe. HIe. TEL 1'10. 612 944 9322 Dee 27,90 13:39 P.03
. '"
. ' . -,
" Mr. '.fom Harmening -2- December 27, 1990
-'.
.,
Parking Supply/Demand RelationsbJp for Two Sites
For purpose of determining parking adequacy, parking spaces for the two sites are
considered suitable if they are located either on the same block as the theater or the
block immediately to the west. While customers could park farther away and walk to
the site, it is likely that a significant number of persons would perceive a parking
problem if thethad to walk longer distances.
";'\ 10th Ave. Site
For the 10th Ave. site, the focal parking area consists of the two blocks bounded by
Main Street, 9th Avenue, ht Street South, and 11th Avenue. Accounting for the
'parking structure on the west side of 10th Avenue, a total of 710 parking spaces
presently are provided in this area. During the evening period, existing uses (less the
three buildin~s that are on the candidate theater site plus an expected 7,SOO sq. ft. pf
additional of Ice space on Main Street~enerate a parking demand for 273 spaces.
Adding the 322 space demand generat bI the theater, the total evening parking
, demand including the theater would be 59 spaces. This demand represents 84 percent
, of the available parking supply and thus could be accommodated without adding
i additional parking spaces. ' ..,
;1 Bursch's Site
'-,. For the Bursch's site, the focal parking area consists of the 1 1/2 block area bounded
I by Main Street, 7th Avenue, south boundary of Bursch's site (north bound~ of .
i apartment site)~ 8th Avenue, ht Street South, and 9th Avenue. A total of 5 6 parking
I spaces presently are provided in this area. During the evening p'<;riod, existing uses
~ (not including any parking demand for the existing Bursch's buIlding) generate a .
demand for 331 parking spaces. Addin~ the 322 scares needed for the theater. the total
, evening parking item and including the t eater WOll d be 653 spaces. This demand
I would exceed the available supply by 29 percent, indicating a shortage of parking
I spaces.
1
CONCLUSIONS
Two key findings from this review are:
. Sufficientcraarking sfaces presently are available near the 10th Ave. site to
accommo ate use 0 that property by a 1300 seat theater.
\ ; Existing parking spaces near the Bursch's site are not sufficient to accommodate
.
. a theater use on that property. About 150 additional spaces would be needed.
These findings should be used along with other important considerations in choosing a
-, site for the theater. If the 10th Ave. site is chosen, the City can be confident that the
;. parking needs will be met adequately. If the Burschts site IS preferred, further work is
needed to investigate opportuOlties to provide.An additional 150 parking spaces in that
area.
~
I 1Utilizing parking rates and land use statistics presented in 1986 Parkine System
AnalY3iJ Report , ' ' .
-_._~--"----~ -.. . __~_~_~~~_~~_ ~___"__'.______'-.< _,,_~'>-,<~__"'___-=--,-"'d_ .' '.::: .__...._.-- :~_", ~. "-'-" , . -, , -'-~ ~~-t ~~ ---- -- ,~~ --=-~ ----..... ~-- ---....- -,,~