CR 91-185 Grocery Store ProjectAugust 15, 1991 Council Report: 91 -185
GROCERY STORE PROJECT
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Authorize staff to
study feasibility and implications of various design alternatives for
project site between 6th and 8th Avenue north of Mainstreet.
Under this action, staff would look at alternatives including a
reduction in the size of the project to reduce penetration into the
residential area.
overview.
The City Council met at a work session on August 13 concerning the
Ryan Construction grocery store project. A large audience of
concerned and affected Hopkins residents were present to voice their
opinions and concerns.
At this meeting the staff provided the Council with a report on the
history of the project and various site alternatives that were
examined. Also 'detailed in this report were various alternatives
available to the Council.
In.concluding the workshop session, the Mayor informed those attending
that this item would again be on the August 20 Council agenda. At
that time the Council would review the various alternatives available
and determine if they wish to consider any new action as relates to
this item.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What are the basic policy questions pertaining to this
project?
o What are the various alternatives available?
o What would need to be undertaken if there was a change in the
project?
o What were the petitions received which, supported or opposed
the subject project?
Supporting Information.
o Si_ map of proposed project area.
Jes D. - Kdrrigan /
P anning & Economic
Development Director
Page 2
CR91 -185
Analysis.
Based on the proposal recommended, the City Council has the
following issues to consider:
o What are the basic policy questions pertaining to this
project?
o Should the City undertake efforts to allow for an
expanded grocery store facility in Hopkins?
Past City Council policy has been to facilitate
the development of an expanded grocery store.
o Where should an expanded grocery store be located?
Past City Council policy has been to only
facilitate such a development in the C.B.D. core
area between 5th & 12th Ave.
o Where should an expanded grocery store facility be
located in the C.B.D. area.
Past City Council policy has been to encourage the
development of an expanded grocery store facility
between 6th and 8th Ave. on the north side of
Mainstreet.
o What are the various alternatives available?
The following alternatives are available to the. Council for
consideration.
1. Continue with the project as currently proposed. if
this course of action is followed, there needs to be no
action by the Council at this time. If desired, the
Council could reaffirm.their previous action.
This alternative provides the most significant impact
into the residential area. It does not address the
concerns as expressed by the neighborhood at the August
13 workshop session.
This alternative does allow construction of both the
grocery store and retail component of the project.
2. Find an site in the downtown. At the August
13'workshop session, the staff identified a number of
alternative sites that had been viewed in conjunction
Page 3
CR91 -185
with this project. All of these other sites for the
most part, appeared unworkable. This was due mostly to
size constraint. Two alternate sites that were looked
at in some detail outside of the project area were the
following:
o Suburban"Chevrolet
o The existing store location
For the Suburban Chevrolet site to be at all workable,
it would also require acquisition of all of the
commercial property on the south side of Mainstreet
between 12th and 13th Avenue. Also a portion of the
St. Joseph's parking lot would need to be secured.
The size of the existing store location is not workable
even if both the drive -thru teller and Richard's Liquor
were acquired. Significant property either east or
west of the site would also need to be acquired. With
the uses in this area, this would not appear to be
practical.
If there was a decision to use this site, the options
available to SuperValu would be probably to either
remodel the existing store or to do a small expansion
if some of the adjacent property could be acquired.
3. Find alternate location in another part of City. The
two most logical alternate sites under this scenario
would be the following:
o R. L. Johnson property
o Pines Trailer Court
To utilize either of these sites would require a change
in past policies developed by the Council. Both sites
would need to be rezoned.
Of the above two sites, the R. L. Johnson property
would be the easiest to facilitate this development.
It is presently unoccupied and there would be no
relocation costs incurred.
If the Council was interested in this alternative, it
would probably be appropriate to have some type of
study /analysis completed which would provide the
following information.
Page 4
CR91 -185
o Impact the downtown would experience if a grocery
store /retail project took place on either of these
sites.
o Market capability to support two grocery stores in
Hopkins, one being in the downtown.
o Ways to mitigate any negative impact on the
downtown.
4. Scale, Back Proposed Project - Staff has detailed two
alternatives on the existing site which would lesson
the penetration into the residential area. Both of
these alternatives probably only allow for construction
of a grocery store facility.
By scaling back the project there would be less tax
increment produced. However, this would be somewhat
offset by the lower acquisition costs.
Following the August 13 meeting, Bill McHale with Ryan
Construction stated that he would look at an
alternative plan which would require the acquisition of
only three houses to see if this plan would provide
adequate area for the store layout.
5. Discontinue any action on a grocery store project. It
would be assumed that if the Council selected this
alternative, based on previous - discussion with
SuperValu, that Tates would probably undertake
renovation of their existing facility.
By just remaining in their existing store, SuperValu
feels that they would not be adequately meeting market
demand for either Hopkins or the larger trade area.
This opinion follows along with the findings of the
last L &H study. If a new store was constructed
sometime in the future out of Hopkins to address
these existing market demands, a smaller Tates might
not be able to adequately compete with such a larger
facility.
o What would need to be undertaken if there was a.chang
in the project?
The first step that would need to be completed is to
determine that the project is physically and financially
feasible either on an alternate site or in a modified design
with this analysis being .completed with a conclusion
Page 5
CR91 -185
acceptable to all parties. The Development Agreement would
need to be revised to reflect the project changes.
If the Council and developer are interested in attempting to
see this project constructed in 1992, all of the various
aspects of the project i.e., location, financing,
environmental, County property issues, need to be resolved
in the not too distant future.
o What were the petitions received for and against the
subject project?
The question on the petition of those signing in opposition
to the project was as follows:
We the undersigned, are opposed to the destruction of
homes to create a grocery store and strip mall on
Mainstreet between 6th Ave. N. and 8th Ave. N. This
project would have a negative effect on present
downtown businesses, it would create more vacant
buildings in our area plus cause disruption and
increased noise and pollution to North Hopkins. Don't
let the City Council.fool you, much better alternatives
are available without ruining the small town atmosphere
of Hopkins.
The petition, with the above question, was signed by 973
individuals. Although a few of the individuals signing this
petition are not Hopkins residents, the majority do reside
within the City. It also appears that the petitioners were
almost all residents as opposed to merchants.
A second petition was submitted to the City Council signed
by business owners /operators in support of the grocery store
project. The question on this petition was as follows:
This petition is for the business people.of Hopkins in
favor of grocery store. - mini -mall between 6th Ave.
north and 8th Ave. north on Mainstreet in Hopkins, MN.
This petition was signed by 171 individuals. A number of
the petitioners are business owners /operators between 8th
and Shady Oak Road.
A second part of this petition details residents of Hopkins
in favor of the grocery store project. It appears the
majority of the signatures on this portion of the petition
are not actually Hopkins residents.
Page 6
CR91 -185
Besides the above petition, there was also a business owners
survey completed by those residents that had circulated the
petition in opposition to the project. There were eight
questions on this survey. One question.asked the respondent:
if they were in favor of a grocery strip mall development on
Mainstreet between 6th Ave. north and 8th Ave. north. Ten
businesses responded that they were not in favor, four in
favor and eight detailed they had no opinion.
The majority of the businesses responding to the above
survey were businesses located in the downtown area.
Alternatives.
The City Council has the following alternatives regarding
this issue,
1. Approve the action as recommended by staff. This
alternative will allow the staff and developer to
review the design alternatives on the subject
site. This understanding would involve looking at
a smaller project and therefore not require as
much residential acquisition. It is anticipated
that staff would be able to return back to the
Council in 15 to 30 days with the conclusions of
this analysis.
2. Do not take any action. If no action was taken,
staff and the developer will continue. to proceed
with the project as identified within the existing
Redevelopment Agreement.
3. Utilize an alternative approach to the grocery
store project as outlined earlier in this report.
4. Continue for additional information.
f = 9/4 9/ .'. - -__ - -- j N –• 1 u caw -t� - , ^ / ''" "' ( �' v m
9 —
_ _ p
1 1 903 c`n ca co ti m cn f f
rn I 4 s w -- p o
902 90/ .p. o j ' , f to f j f — - o co - o m m i
/O g 2 .126
/3
E 15
N,,, w 25 29 35. ' X37 0 1 �L
2 Oo
/ /0 /09 I/3 /3 /25 12,4
0 8/7 y N .A � �,� 8/4• a 8/5y = w j ± - ch rn y ( o ` o N N rn
f r /6 0 - j (v' c , y m cv n c^o c^o o n
d ( co 8I 8// _ . y t ?9 �' W - tr rn ti c° cp c
-`� --- �- �- 1... . m tp c
.-. r. ...
J m , y X04 o0 00 w ao w
j °' 80 80l �' y N
CD
o _
0) 0) o m ao v c,
m8 L /4 22 26 130 46
cD _ 1
" ..,
!02 106 . 1 10 114
/5 � 724 151 /9
1-4 1 .A .p 29 /03 ! V ENV .
c ! m ^ ro 72 T/7 1 C (D — O !O (/ 1231 27131 13 1 .
cc�
y - p , (
w w
714 715 1 cn rn .� , -• U j rn •� m N
m I rn C"`tt 7 m l o �„ ==
p N 1 OD 3 N N r�
tO 706 co a, rn cAm -p _ — = _ .r
18 j /2 70 TO/ 05 rn j ^' o co m °.o �, 0) v
18 22 ' 6
30 34 3B 2
co I , � /!O 114 118
9 �1 '/c AI V�
1 L ,� �i N /3 /T 21 25 2 ` ,4 l�E
o .� 9 33 37 /(g,/ �D 10 113 117 /2/ I2 /2
13,
w W W v ZO
N r j N
CO N N y W
co ca (A
f
( 1 . w (A N 4 m� m - A, co ( 0' N
N
6 /0 14 18 fV O , to as y n D
• 22 6 30 34 44 j (A
10611 114 118 /2
I26 /.�D 13 I3E
19 15 5 3
N N W
co
l5 t33VLU�
/09 11,5•� 13
A co j
j — f N) (' j -v OD cD
1
D J � � _ � � � cn N -- �f � � J� m
Ln
I v
/ 44 0 -14 24 3a 36 o CO 1 ccm ` /02 " //O ( 18 12
- rl x'34
/O/ /OT 121
125 131
I Ul .Q
M.
A
-N D y m o -- — v� a, -
CD / J - v__ � .•-. � 0 z . `
•-. _
_ p
r m N m a (D rn °� w r
1 n ll4 ll8 _ 122 126 130
41