CR 07-003 Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)-Excelsior Crossings
C\TY OF
m
December 27, 2006
NOPKINS
Council Report 07-3
AL TERNA TIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) - EXCELSIOR
CROSSINGS
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution 07-1. adopting the December 2006 Update to the May Updated Alterative
Areawide Review and the Update Mitigation Plan for the Excelsior Crossings Office
Development as the revised Environmental Analysis Document and Plan for Mitigation for
the Excelsior crossings Area.
Overview.
In 2001 an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed for the Medica
development proposed on the former SUPERV ALU North Annex site. This environmental
review was required because of the size of development. The Excelsior Crossings office
development on this site will require that the AUAR that was prepared for Medica be
updated. The AUAR for the Excelsior Crossings was approved on May 16, 2006. Now
because the proposed development is 55,000 square feet in additional office development, the
AUAR that was approved on May 16,2006, needs to be updated. The City of Hopkins is the
Responsible Governmental Unit for the AUAR
On December 5, 2006, the updated AUAR was distributed for the 10-working-day comment
period. Comments were received on the updated AUAR until December 18,2006. Attached
are the Responses to Comments. On pages 2-4 are the comments from the agencies and the
responses. Only comments from agencies were received.
Primarv Issues to Consider.
. What is an AUAR?
. Why is the applicant doing an AUAR?
. Who submitted comments to the AUAR?
SUDDortin!! Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Responses To Comments
. AUAR
. Resolution 07-1
Nancy S
Planner
Financial Impact: $_ N/ A Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Y/N
Source:
CR07 -3
Page 2
Primarv Issues to Consider.
What is an AUAR?
The Alternative Urban Areawide Review process substitutes for any Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EA W) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required for
specific qualifying proj ects, provided they comply with the review assumptions and
mitigation measures. The Environmental Quality Board states the following: A hybrid of the
EA Wand EIS review processes, the AUAR uses a standard list of questions adapted from the
EA W, providing a level of analysis for typical urban area impacts comparable to an EIS.
Since its content is uniform, scoping is not necessary; however, it has been voluntarily added
to several reviews. A draft and final document are prepared and distributed in a manner
similar to an EIS to ensure adequate review. A process for appeal to the Environmental
Quality Board can be invoked by state agencies and the Metropolitan Council.
Why is the applicant doing an AUAR?
The development is required to have an environmental review. The applicant chooses the
AUAR process because an AUAR reviews a development scenario or several scenarios for
an entire geographical area rather than a specific project.
. Who submitted comments to AUAR?
Overall, the comments from the AUAR were positive. A mitigation plan and responses to the
comments will be completed. The following are the agencies that submitted comments:
. Metropolitan Council
. Hennepin County Transportation Department
. Minnesota Department of Transportation
. City of Minnetonka
See the attached Responses to Comments regarding the specific cqmments and responses.
~
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 07-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS
ADOPTING THE DECEMBER 2006 UPDATE
TO THE MA Y UPDATED ALTERNATIVE
AREA WIDE REVIEW AND UPDATED MITIGATION
PLAN FOR THE EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT AS THE REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL
ANAL YSIS DOCUMENT AND PLAN FOR MITIGATION
FOR THE EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS AREA
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2006, the City Council of the City of Hopkins adopted the
Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review And Updated Mitigation Plan for the Excelsior
Crossings Office Development (May Updated AUAR) for the area designated as the SuperValu
North Annex parcel and the Chimney parcel that were proposed for redevelopment as a
primarily office project known as the Excelsior Crossings Office Development (Project); and
WHEREAS, the Project developer, Opus Northwest, L.L.C. (Opus) , informed the City
Council that, due to strong market demand, Opus intended to add 55,000 square feet of office
space to the Project, and the City determined therefore that preparation of an update to the May
Updated AUAR was required; and
WHEREAS on November 21, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 06-76 that
(a) directed preparation of an update to the May Updated AUAR, (b) retained RLK
Incorporated to assist City staff in preparing the update; and
WHEREAS, City staff and consultants prepared the December 2006 Update to the May
Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Excelsior Crossings Office Development,
Hopkins, Minnesota dated Deceplber 1, 2006 (December 2006 Update); and
WHEREAS, notice of availability of the December 2006 Update was published in the
EQB Monitor on December 4, 2006; the December 2006 Update was distributed in accordance
with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program Rules;
notice was also published in the local newspaper; and copies of the December 2006 Update
were made available to the public on the City's web site, at City Hall, and in the public library;
and
WHEREAS, the review and comment phase of the December 2006 Update was
completed ten working days after receipt by State agencies of the December 2006 Update, and
;
WHEREAS, responses to the December 2006 Update were received from the City of
Minnetonka, Hennepin County Transportation Department, the Metropolitan Council, and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Responses To Comments On And
Amendments To The Updated Alternative Areawide Review And Updated Mitigation Plan For
The Excelsior Crossings Office Development, Hopkins, Minnesota dated January 2, 2007
(Responses And Amendments), adequately addresses the comments received and makes
necessary changes in the December 2006 Update;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins that the
City Council hereby designates the December 2006 Update and the Responses And
Amendments as the revised environmental analysis and plan for mitigation for t~e SuperValu
Annex and Chimney parcels area and adopts them in accordance with Environmental Review
Program Rule 4410:3610, Subp. 5E.
Adopted by the Hopkins City Council this _ day of January 2007.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
fb.us.l 72657 1.04
2
Responses To Comments On
And Amendments To
The December 2006 Update To The Ma'L.YPdated
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
For The
Excelsior Crossings Office Development
J::Igpkins, Minnesota
City of lIopkins
January 2, 2007
Prepared By
RLK Incorporated
6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Tel 952-933-0972
Fax 952-933-1153
www.rlkinc.com
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343-9475
Tel 952-935-8474
Fax 952-935-1834
www.hopkinsmn.com
Table Of Contents
INTRODUCTION............................................... ............................................................................................... 1
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.............................. ....... ................................................................................... 2
A. Metropolitan CounciL........ ..... ............................................................................................. 2
B. Minnesota Department of Transportation............................................................................ 2
C. Hennepin County Transportation Dep~ent .................................................................... 5
D. City of Minnetonka.............................................................................................................. 5
AMENDMENTS To THE DECEMBER 2006 UPDATE
22. b. Traffic, Mitigation Measures...................................................................... .........................6
Attachment A, Introduction, Project Site .........................................................................................6
Attachment A, Operational Analysis Results, Jackson A venue/St. Louis
StreetJPrimary Site Access Intersection, PM Peak .......................................................................... 7
THE APPENDIX
Copies of Comment Letters........................................................................................ Attachment A
Responses To Comments On December 2006 Update To May
Updated AUAR For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
January 2,2007
Page i
Introduction
The December 2006 Update To The May Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review For The Excelsior
Crossings Office Development dated December 1, 2006 (December 2006 Update), was prepared by the
City of Hopkins (City) and published for objection and comment in the EQB Monitor on December,
2006. The December 2006 Update is an update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review And
Updated Mitigation Plan For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development adopted by the City on May
16, 2006 (May Updated AUAR).
The required 10-working day comment period ended on December 18, 2006. The ten-working days
period after receipt for State agencies to comment and object has also expired. Comments were received
from the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Hennepin County
Transportation Department, and the City ofMinnetonka. No objections were received.
The City has reviewed and considered the comments and the internal suggestions of its staff and traffic
consultant. To respond, the City has prepared this Responses To Comments On And Amendments To The
December 2006 Update To The May Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review For The Excelsior
Crossings Office Development (Responses And Amendments). The fIrst section of this Reponses And
Amendments reproduces the full text of each comment letter with responses inserted following the
comments. The second section contains three amendments to the December 2006 Update. Appendix A
contains copies of the comment letters.
The Hopkins City Council has adopted the December 2006 Update and this Responses And Amendments.
The December 2006 Update required no change to the May 2006 Updated AUAR Mitigation Plan.
Responses To Comments On December 2006 Update To May
Updated AUAR For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
January 2,2007
Page 1
Com'ments and Responses
In this section, the City reproduces the full text of each comment in italics and presents the City's
responses. (Copies of the actual comments are included in this Responses And Amendments' as
Attachment A.) Sometimes the response comes at the end of the letter; in other cases, the response
follows a comment paragraph.
A. Metropolitan Council
Letter from Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Local Planning Assistance, dated December 18, 2006
Comment: Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the December 2006 Update to the May
Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review (A UAR) for the Excelsior Crossings Office Development to
determine its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Staff concludes that the
December 2006 Update of the A UAR is complete and accurate and raises no major issues of consistency
with Council policies. However, staff offers the following comments:
Item 25 - Nearby Resources, and Attachment A - December 2006 Update to the May 2006 Updated
AUAR Traffic Impact Study (Jan Youngquist, 651-602-1029)
The Cedar Lake LRT Trail and the North Cedar Lake LRT Trail are regional trails adjacent to the
development area. Both cross Excelsior Boulevard just south of the site. The developer and the City
should continue to work with Three Rivers Park District to ensure that trail approaches and road
crossings in this -location are as safe as possible. Jonathan Vlaming is the contact person for Three
Rivers Park District; he can be reached at (763-694-7632).
The Council will take no formal action on the December 2006 Update to the A UAR. If you have any
questions or needfurther information, please contact Gret Pates, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1410.
Response: Comment noted.
B. Minnesota Department of Transportation
Letter from Juanita Voigt, Transportation Planner, dated December 18, 2006
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Excelsior Crossings Office Development updated
AUAR. Please note that Mn/DOT's review of this AUAR does not constitute approval of a regional traffic
analysis and is not a specific approval for access or new roadway improvements. As plans are refined,
we would like the opportunity to meet with our partners and to review the updated information.
Mn/DOT's staff has reviewed the document and has the following comments:
Traffic:
· The current traffic volumes for the ramp to northbound TH 169 are equal to the 2020 volumes
projected in the traffic study. Increased ramp volumes combined with the high density on the
mainline may cause the ramp operations to break down. However, as explained below, there are no
plans to improve the ramp situation.
Responses To Comments On December 2006 Update To May
Updated AUAR For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
January 2,2007
Page 2
Response: First the City has contacted MnIDOT and finds the factual assertion that "current traffic
volumes for the ramp to northbound TH169 are equal to the 2020 volumes projected in the traffic study"
is incorrect. According to a Mn/DOT staff person who regularly monitors this ramp, the current PM peak
hour volume during typical weekdays in October is close to 700 vehicles. This 700 vehicle per hour
volume is considerably below the projected 2020 PM peak hour volume of 840 vehicles as presented in
the December 2006 AUAR.
Second and more importantly, Mn/DOT's policies for operating the ramp meter on this entrance will
prevent the breakdown of ramp operations. As noted in the December 2006 AUAR, Attachment A,
December 2006 Update To The May 2006 Updated AUAR Traffic Impact Study, Ramp Metering
Practices on page 8 and 9:
"Concerns have risen over the potential for excessive queues from the [TH169]
ramp meters building sufficiently to back up onto Excelsior Boulevard. Through
conversations with Mn/DOT and review of ramp metering studies performed in
various ramp metering locations throughout the metro area, it was determined that
this possibility has been accounted for in the timing algorithm for releasing cars
onto the freeway.
According to Mn/DOT, queuing extending to the adjacent arterial (Excelsior
Boulevard in this case) is one of the major factors considered in determining the
length of time each vehicle must wait at the ramp meter, a calculation called
''timing algorithm." To accurately diagnose the length of the queue waiting to
enter the freeway, each on-ramp is monitored by loop detectors installed into the
pavement that detect the passage or presence of vehiCles. Two loop detectors are
installed on each entrance ramp, one near Excelsior Boulevard at the beginning of
the ramp and one at the end of the ramp immediately prior to where vehicles enter
the freeway. These two detectors work together to determine the queue length
present on the ramp by calculating the number of entering and exiting cars. In
turn, the ramp meter signal timing is adjusted as part of the complex timing
algorithm. The initial ramp detector near Excelsior Boulevard includes a
"presence" function that allows it to determine if a stopped vehicle is present at the
end of the ramp. If it senses the presence of a stopped vehicle, the metering rate
within the timing algorithm is adjusted (or eliminated if necessary) to shorten the
queue and eliminate potential backup onto Excelsior Boulevard."
In further communications with Mn/DOT about this comment, Mn/DOT noted that, "the ramp queue
detectors take approximately 30 seconds before activating a change in the ramp metering rates," and goes
on to say, "Several locations in the Metro area experience those types of delays when demand exceeds the
ramp metering [capacity within that 30-second timeframe]. It is not uncommon to see backups occurring
up to and through the ramp terminals."
Due to the roadway configuration leading from the Excelsior Crossings site to the northbound TH169 on-
ramp (three successive right turns), excessive platooning of vehicles that could overburden the on-ramp
within the 30-second timeframe is not forecast. Rather, vehicle arrivals will be more random due to the
availability of right-turn-on-red exiting the Project Site, a free right turn onto Excelsior Boulevard, and a
yield-controlled right turn onto the on-ramp. Observation of the SimTraffic model confirms this
anticipated result. Although not predicted in the SimTraffic model, should a vehicular queuing issue
develop within the 30-second timeframe before the ramp meter timing algorithm is able to automatically
Responses To Comments On December 2006 Update To May
Updated AUAR For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
January 2, 2007
Page 3
adjust, it will not be of a magnitude or duration to cause a breakdown to Excelsior Boulevard operations
and does not pose a major concern.
Comment: Highway System Improvements:
· In the' MnDOT Metro District 2008 - 2030 Transportation System Plan (TSP), TH 169 is designated
as a management corridor. The performance based analysis conducted for the TSP indicates that
additional lanes are needed Since the TSP is a fiscally constrained plan, fundingfor the widening of
TH 169 has not been identified within the TSP time frame. Bridge replacement projects may be
completed during the 2008 - 2030 time period. Also, the TH 7 / Blake Road North / Aquila Avenue
South signalized intersection is programmed for a signal modification and access closure project
with an estimated letting date of May 15, 2009. For questions on these points, call Wayne Norris,
Mn/DOT Metro District West Area Engineer, at (651) 582-1295.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: Drainage:
,. A drainage permit may be required The proposed development will need to maintain existing
drainage rates (i.e. the rate at which storm water is dischargedfrom the site must not increase). If
runoff will increase, a Mn/DOT drainage permit will be required In the event that a drainage permit
is required, the City or project developer will need to submit before/after hydraulic computations for
both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems
affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated
Also, it is assumed by the project description that the proposed regional pond will be maintained by
the applicant and city. Judgingfrom the maps, the regional pond does not appear to drain onto
Mn/DOT's right of way. If this is not the case, as drainage permit will be required.
Please direct questions concerning these issues to Molly Chermak (651-634-2356) of Mn/DOT's
Water Resources Engineering section.
Response: No change in stormwater runoff to MnDOT right of way is anticipated with this project.
Comment: Permits:
· Any work impacting Mn/DOT right of way will require a permit. Permit forms are available from
MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility. Please direct any questions regarding
permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such
as plats and site plans to:
Development Review Coordinator
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Responses To Comments On December 2006 Update To May
Updated AUAR For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
January 2,2007
Page 4
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of
other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2)
copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's 30-day review
and response process to development proposals.
We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will
prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
Jfyou have any questions, pleasefeelfree to contact me at 651-634-2083.
Response: Comment noted.
C. Hennepin County Transportation Department
Email from Robert H. Byers, Senior Transportation Engineer, dated December 5, 2006
Comment: Hennepin County's only comments on the December 2006 update to the Excelsior Crossings
Office Development A UAR is the same as the one we made earlier in April 2006 - we believe that the
traffic analysis should be for a 20-year design periodfrom the date of the 2027 or 2030, not 2020.
Again, the reasons for this comment are:
- This is consistent with regional transportation analysis procedures of the Metropolitan Council.
- This consistent with the long range Comprehensive Planning procedures of the cities and
counties.
-A 20-year timeframe is generally the assumed lifespan of a roadway.
Response: The December 2006 Updated AUAR was prepared to compare development proposed in the
May 2006 Updated AUAR to the Excelsior Crossings Office Development. A new traffic study and
count of 2006 background traffic was provided for the May 2006 update to the AUAR. The year 2020
was retained as the forecast year for the updated traffic analysis, so changes to the Original AUAR
approved in 2001 could be determined. In subsequent updates, a 20-year forecast horizon will be used.
D. City of Minnetonka
Letter from Susan M. Thomas, Principal Planner, dated December 13, 2006
Comment: Staff has reviewed the December 2006 Update to AUARfor the Excelsior Crossing Office
Development. Given that the overall LOS on area roadways would remain essentially the same when
compared to the May 2006 A UAR, the City of Minnetonka has no comments at this time.
Response: Comment noted.
Responses To Comments On December 2006 Update To May
Updated AUAR For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
January 2,2007
Page 5
Amendments to December 2006 Update
In this section, the City amends one Item and Attachment A in the December 2006 Update. For clarity,
the Item or Attachment subsection is reproduced, with additions show in double underlining, and with
deletions show in strike-through. The Item number is the same as in the December 2006 Update.
21. Traffic
b. Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures, as suggested in the previous May Updated AUAR are
proposed for the current December 2006 Update at the St. Louis Street/Site Access and Jackson
Avenue intersection:
. Restriping of the southbound approach to extend the left turn storage bay length from
75 feet to 120 feet.
. Design of the onsite eastbound approach to include a ~215-foot right turn storage
bay. Based on Figure 11, this suggestion is already part of the Project design.
. Installation of a traffic signal when warranted. Careful consideration must be !liven to
the desilm of this traffic sil!I1al and its coordination with the existin!l sil!I1al at the
Excelsior Boulevard/Jackson Avenue intersection to avoid the Dossibilitv that
northbound Queues on Jackson Avenue would back from the main Project Site access to
Excelsior Boulevard.
. Adjustment of signage and striping on the northbound approach to create dual left turn
lanes and shared through/right lane. This measure should be completed concurrently
with installation of the traffic signal.
. Hennepin County should modify signal system timing to ensure safe operations
throughout the study area network.
Attachment A, Introduction, Proiect Site, second paragraph:
Access to the site is proposed at three locations. The primary access is proposed to be the currently
unused leg of the existing St. Louis Street/Jackson Avenue intersection. Based on the results of this
traffic study, a traffic signal is forecast to be warranted at this entrance. The second access (not forecast
to warrant a traffic signal) is a proposed driveway onto 2nd Street NE, approximately 620 feet west of
Jackson Avenue. Lastly, an entrance approximately +W-250 feet north of the primary entrance will serve
primarily the onsite retail land use. Internal site roadways would connect the accesses to on-site surface
and structured parking facilities. Figure 3, "Concept Site Plan," details the layout of the site and access
locations.
Responses To Comments On December 2006 Update To May
Updated AUAR For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
January 2, 2007
Page 6
Attachment A, ODerational Analvsis Results, Jackson Avenue/St. Louis Street/Primary Site Access
Intersection, PM peak, second set of bullets:
Based on these results, the following measures are suggested for the design of the primary site access
intersection as detailed on Figure 9:
~ Restriping of the southbound approach to extend the left turn storage bay length from 75 feet to
120 feet.
~ Design of the onsite eastbound approach to include a 215-foot right turn storage bay. Based on
Figure 11, the Concept Site Plan, this suggestion is already accounted for.
~ Installation of a traffic signal when warranted. Careful consideration must be l!iven to the desiQ:11
of this traffic siQ:11al and its coordination with the existinl! siQ:11al at the Excelsior Boulevard!
Jackson Avenue intersection to avoid the Dossibilitv that northbound Queues on Jackson Avenue
would back from the main Proiect Site access to Excelsior Boulevard.
~ Adjustment of signage and striping on the northbound approach to create dual left turn lanes and
shared through/right turn lane. This measure should be completed concurrently with installation
of the traffic signal.
~ Although beyond the 95th percentile and therefore unlikely, the potential for queues to extend
back to Excelsior Boulevard does exist. Signal timing for the intersection should be monitored
regularly to ensure safe operation.
Responses To Comments On December 2006 Update To May
Updated AUAR For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
January 2,2007
Page 7
ATTACHMENT A
COPIES OF COMMENT LETTERS
fb.us.1733333.03
DEC. 1 9. 2 0 0 6 1 0 : 1 3 AM
C:TY_OF_HOPKINS
NO. 043
p, 1/4
~ Metropolitan Council
December 18~ 2006
Nancy Ander&o~ City Planner
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins~ MN 55343-9475
RE~ City of Hopkins De~embe:r 2006 Update for Excelsior Crossings Office De'Velopment
Alterna1i:fe Urban Areawide Re'rlew
Metropolitan Council Dis1riot 3 (Mazy Hill Smi~ 952-475..1388)
Metropolitan Council Review File No.. 18555-4
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Metropolitan CQuncil staff completed its review oftbe December 2006 Update to the: May Updated
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Excelsior Crossings Office Development to
determine its acouracy and completeness in addressing regional ooncerns. Staff concludes that the
December 2006 Update of the AUAR is complete and aoct.I(ate and raises nO major issues of consistency
with Council policies. However, staff offers the following comments:
ItBm 25 - Neatby Resources, and Attachment A .. December 2006 Update to the May Z006 Updated
AUAR Traffic JmpactSmdy (Jan YoungquistJ 651-602-1029)
The Cedar Lake LRT. Tr~~ ~d the North 9.edar Lake LRT Tt~l areregio~aJ trails adjacent. tP',th~.
development area.. Both cross Excelsior Boulevard just south of the site. The developer and the City
should oontinue to work with 'Fbree Ri'lerS Park District to ensure that trail approaches and road
crossings in this location are as safe f1S pos$ible. Jonathan Vlamlng is the contact person for Three
River5 P~rk District; he can-be reached at (763-694..7(32).
The Council will take no formal action on ihe December 2006 Update of the AUAR. If you have any
questions or need 'further information, please contact Greg Patest Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1410.
ce: Jack jackson~ MultiFamily Market Analyst
Tod Shennan, Development Revie-ws Cootdinator, MnDOT ~ Metro Division
Mary Hill Smith, Me1ropolitan Council District 3
Keith Buttleman., Environmental Services
I r. Jim Vttl~, 8ttctor Representative. r. t . I -;' ,: . . . h. ~" ~ .4 ". l~. ."1 . :'"
" Cheryl.Olsen, Rev1t'fw~.:Coot:dinatot' '. :'" ..~,.
.. , .. I' . "'. ..
I . .. '....
, .
. '
v ;~~vm~~\~o~uni\ic:ls\l.JdI'Nn~\L
7611 D~te
~ From fun
Co.
W\KI'W .m.f
PI'ICoa #
PhOne #-
, Fax II
. Fax#
390 Robert Street North eSt. Pa.ul, MN.65101-1805 II-
All ~ Or'9\If~'Ia'!l"""_II""
..'~- DEC. 19.2006 10: 18AM
C:TY_OF_HOPKINS
NO. 044
P. 1
~Es~~ Minnesota Department of Trnnsportaticm
!jD~
;, B Metropolitan District _._ __. __"'___~ _. _"_
" ~lf Waters Edge
Ontlll 1500 West County Road 6m2
RoseviIle, MN 55113..3174 To
December 1 B, 2006
Nancy Anderson
City Planner
1010 First Street South
Hopkinsp 1vIN 55343
Subject:
E:gcelsioI' Crossings Office Developna.ent updated AUAR & Mitigation Plan
Minnesota DeJ?artme:nt of Transportation (MnJDOT) Review # AUAR. 06-001A
Northeast quadrant of Tnmk Highway (TR) 169 and CSAB: 3 (Excelsior
BouleVEird)
City of HopkinslHennepin County
MnlDOT Control Section # 2772
Dear Ms. Andersol1:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Excelsior Crossings Office Development updated
AUAR. Please note fhatMn/DOT's re'View of this AUAR does not oonstitute approval ofa
regional tnlffic a:D:a1ysis and is not a specific approval for access or new"roadwa.y improvements.
As plans are renned, we would like the opportunity to meet with out pa.rtJiex's and to review the
p.pdated inf'oimati~m:. MWDOT~ s sta:tI: h3!J r~viewed the document and has the 'folloWing
GQln:m~ts.:
Trolfic: ... I
ill The current traffic volumes for the ramp to northbound TH 169 are ~qua.1 to the 2020
volumes projected in the traffic study. Increased ramp volumes combined with the high
density on the mainline may cause the ramp operations to break down. However, as
explained belowt there are no plans to improve the ramp situation.
Highway System Impro1J6ment8:
14 In the MnlDOT Metro District 2008... 2030 Transportation System Plan (TSP) ,..JJi MSJ. ~s
designated as a management corridor. The perfonnance based analysis conducted for the
TSP indicates that additional lanes are needed. Since the TSP is a fiscally constrained plan,
funding for the widening ofTH 169 has not been identified within the TSP time frame.
Bridge replaoemen.t projeclS may be completed during tbe 2008 - 2030 time period. Also,
the TH 7 / Blake Road North r Aquilla Avenue South Signalized intersootion is programmed
for a signal modification and access closure project with an estimated letting date of May
15,2009. FOJ: questions on thes~ points, please call Wayne Norr~, MnlDOT Metro
District West Area Engineer, at (651) 582-1295.
l!.ra;inpgtt; :
~;. · A drainage.p~t.7.t\a.y' be r,equited. The proposed development will\tu~ed to I11aintain
existing dm~a.ge rates (i.e., the rate at which stonn. water is dis~hargcd from the site must not
. incl"ease). Ifronoftwill increase, a :M.uJDOT drainage permit will be required. In the event
tha.t a dra.inage permit is required, the City Or project developer will need to submit
An equal opportunity employer
. \.
~ ""-
DEC. 19. 200 6 1 0 : 1 8 AM
ClTY_OF_~OPKINS
NO. 044
P. 2
before/after hydraulio computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that aU
existing drainage patterns and systems aff~ting I\I1oIDOT right of way will be perpetuated.
Also. it is assumed by the project description that the proposed regional pond will be
maintained by thee applicant and city. Judging from the mapsJ ~e regional pond does not
appear to drain onto MnlDOT1s right of way. If this is not the case, as drainage permit will
be required-
Please direct questions concerning these issues to Molly Chermak (651..634-2356) of
M:n!.DOT's Water Resources Engineering section.
Permits:
III Any work impacting Mn/DOT right of way will requite a permit. Permit forms are available
from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.usItecs\tp/utilitv . Please direct any
que$iions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-582-1447) ofMnDOT's Metro
Permits SeotiQn.
As a reminder, please address aU initial future correspondence for development activity such as
plats and site plans to:
Development Review Coordinator
MnlDOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2)
oopies of othe~ review documents including site plans. Faill.l.1'e to provide three (3) copies of a
plat and/or two (2) copies of other review docmnents wlll make a submittal inoomplete and delay
MnlDOT's 30-day review and response process to develop1llent prQPosaIs.
We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the ne:oessa:ry number of copies, as this
will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submitta1s.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 651-634-2083.
Juanita Voigt
Transportation Planner
~F
co: Rob Wied, Hennepin County Survey Section, Minneapolis;, MN
Bob Byers, Hennepin County Transportation Planning Section , Medin~ :MN
John DietriehJ ASLA, Prlo.cipal Landscape Archite~ RLK. lrJ.Q~J Minnetonka, MN
DEC. 19.2006 10:14AM
CITY_OF _HOPKINS
NO. 043
P. 2/4
Nancy Anderson
From:
Senti
To~
CC~
Subject:
~ -
U WI
Robert. syers@oo.hennepin.mn.us
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:08 AM
Nancy Anderson
Tom.Johnson@co.hennepin.mn.us: James.Grube@co.hennepin.rnn.us
Excelsior Crossings AUAR
Na.ncy An<;l.erson~
Hennepin Countyts only comments on the December 2006 update to the Egcel~ior Crossings
Offiee Development AUAR is the same as the one we made earlier in April 2006 - we believe
that the traffic analysis should Qe for a 20-year design pe~iod from tAe date of the
anticipated development open~ng (i.e.
2027 or 2030 not 2020).
Againl the reasons for this comment are:
This i9 consistent with regional transportation analysis procedures of the
Metropolitan Council
~bis is consistsnt with the lcn~ range Comprehensive planning procedures of tn~
cities and counties
~ 20-year timeframe is generally the assumed lifespan of a roadway
- Bob Byers
Bob ayers, P.E.
Senior Transportation Eng~neer
Hennepin County ~ransportation Department Transportation Planning Oivision 1600 ~rai~ie
'Drive
Medina, MN 55340-5421
o12~596-03S4 (Direct dial)
763~478-4000 (FAX)
.
;J.
December 21, 2006
JSH 1/2/07
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED
REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
By and Between
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF HOPKINS
and
OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C.
Dated:
, 2007
This document was drafted by:
BRADLEY & DEIKE, P. A.
4018 West 65th Street, Suite 100
Edina, MN 55435
Telephone: (952) 926-5337
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREAMBLE
1
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions
3
ARTICLE II
ReDresentations
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority
Section 2.2. Representations by the Redeveloper
7
7
ARTICLE III
RedeveloDment ProDosal: Public Assistance
Section 3.1. Redevelopment Proposal
Section 3.2. Demolition and Remediation
Section 3.3. Issuance of Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds
Section 3.4. Authority and City Costs
Section 3.5. Intentionally Omitted
Section 3.6. Environmental and Soil Conditions
Section 3.7. Joint Use Property
Section 3.8. SUPERV ALU Agreement and Option
9
9
10
15
16
16
16
16
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.2. Master Development Plan
Section 4.3. Construction of Phases
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion
17
17
18
19
(i)
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance
ARTICLE VI
Taxes: Tax Increment
Section 6.1. Use of Tax Increment
Section 6.2. Redeveloper's Representations Concerning Notes
Section 6.3. Authority Allocations
ARTICLE VII
FinaDcin!!
Section 7.1. Limitation on Encumbrance of Property
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions A!!ainst Assi!!nment and Transfer: Indemnification
Section 8.1. Prohibition Against Transfer of Property and
Assignment of Agreement
Section 8.2. Release and Indemnification Covenants
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by
One Waiver
(ii)
'> -
;
20
22
22
22
24
25
25
26
26
26
26
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Representatives Not Individually Liable
Section 10.2. Titles of Articles and Sections
Section 10.3. Notices and Demands
Section 10.4. Disclaimer of Relationships
Section 10.5. Modifications
Section 10.6. Counterparts
Section 10.7. Judicial Interpretation
Section 10.8. Business Subsidy Agreements
Section 10.9. Effect of Termination of Agreement
Section 10.10. Cooperation and Good Faith
Section 10.II.Estoppel
Section 1 0.12.Unavoidable Delay
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
SCHEDULE A
SCHEDULE B
SCHEDULE C
Description of Redevelopment Property
Description of Joint Use Property
Form of Phase Notes
(iii)
REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the _ day of ,2007, by and among
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Hopkins, a public body
corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") which was created pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, section 469.001-469.047 (the "Act"), having its principal office at 1010 First
Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343, and Opus Northwest, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Redeveloper"), having its principal office at
10350 Bren Road West, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created and authorized to transact business and exercise its
powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of Hopkins (the City of Hopkins is
hereinafter referred to as the "City") adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes~ Section 469.003;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act the Authority has the legal authority to undertake
redevelopment projects for the purpose of eliminating blighted and substandard buildings and
properties within areas designated as redevelopment projects within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has established its Redevelopment Project No.2 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Project") in an area of the City (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Area")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has presented to the Authority a proposal pursuant to which
the Redeveloper would acquire certain real property located in the City (which property is
referred to 'herein as the "Redevelopmen~ Property"), demolish the structures currently located on
the Redevelopment Property and develop a multi-phased office development thereon (the
"Minimum Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with the Project, there has been created Tax Increment
Financing District No.2-II (hereinafter referred to as the "Tax Increment District") pursuant to
the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174-469.178; and
WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the redevelopment of the Redevelopment
Property is in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, safety, and welfare of its
residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable state and local
laws and, therefore, the Authority is prepared to enter into this Agreement and to perform its
obligations contained herein.
WHEREAS, the Authority and Redeveloper entered into that certain "Redevelopment
Agreement" dated March 29, 2006 (the "Original Contract") to effectuate the goals detailed
above; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has submitted to the Authority a proposal for the
redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property that differs in ways from the proposal
contemplated by the Original Contract and the Redeveloper and the Authority desire by this First
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Agreement to amend and restate the Original Contract in
its entirety; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other that the Original
Contract is hereby amended and completely restated as follows:
2
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears
from the context:
"Act" means Minnesota Statutes~ Sections 469.001-469.047, as amended.
"Affiliate" means any Person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by or under
direct or indirect common control with a Person and any purchaser of all or substantially all of
the assets of such Person. For this purpose, "control" means the power to direct management and
policies, directly or indirectly, whether through ownership of voting securities, by contract or
otherwise, and the terms "controlling" and "controlled" have correlative meanings.
"Agreement" means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified,
amended, or supplemented.
"Authority" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of
Hopkins, or any successor or assign.
"Available Tax Increment," with respect to a Scheduled Payment Date, means (1) the New
Tax Increment received by the Authority in the six (6) month period preceding such Scheduled
Payment Date after deducting therefrom ten percent (10%) thereof to be retained by the
Authority as reimbursement for administrative costs plus (2) the Existing Tax Increment received
by the Authority in the six (6) month period preceding such Scheduled Payment Date after
deducting therefrom (a) ten percent (10%) thereof to be retained by the Authority as
reimbursement for administrative costs plus (b) the amount necessary to make the next scheduled
debt service payment on the Prior Bonds. With respect to the first Scheduled Payment Date
under the Phase Bonds issued by the Authority for Phase 1, the term "Available Tax Increment"
shall also include ninety percent (90%) of the Existing Tax Increment received by the Authority
after March 29,2006.
Base Value" means the tax capacity of all property located within the Tax Increment
District as of the date of establishment, as certified to the Authority by the Hennepin County
Auditor.
"City" means the City of Hopkins.
"Class B Office Space" means that type and quality of office space defmed as "Class B" by
the Builders Owners and Managers Association International.
"Commence" means, with respect to construction of any Phase of Minimum
Improvements, commencement of construction of footings and foundations related thereto.
3
"Complete" means, with respect to construction of any Phase of Minimum
Improvements, substantial completion thereof in accordance with Authority-approved
construction, plans.
"County" means Hennepin County, Minnesota.
"Coverage" means the mnount by extent to which estimated annual Tax Increment exceeds
annual debt service with respect to Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds.
"Environmental Reports" means studies and analysis performed by consultants to
SUPERV ALU and the Redeveloper showing adverse environmental conditions existing upon
and within the Redevelopment Property.
"Existing Tax Increment" means all Tax Increment that after March 29, 2006 is derived
with respect to the SUPERV ALU Warehouse, which Tax Increment does not include New Tax
Increment.
"Event of Default" means an action listed in Section 9.1 of this Agreement.
"Holder" means the owner of a Mortgage.
"J oint Use Property" means the real property described on Schedule B to this Agreement'
to be the subject ofajoint use agreement pursuant to Section 3.7.
"Master Development Plan" means the plan that shows the nature and location of the
various Phases of the Minimum Improvements which has been developed as described in Section
4.2 of this Agreement.
"Minimum Improvements" means the construction by the Redeveloper on the
Redevelopment Property. of a multi-phased office development all as is further described in this
Agreement and the approved Master Development Plan.
"Mortgage" means any mortgage made by the Redeveloper that is secured, in whole or in
part, by the Redevelopment Property and which is a permitted encumbrance pursuant to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Agreement.
"New Tax Increment" means all Tax Increment that after March 29, 2006 is derived with
respect to the Mini~um Improvements and the Redevelopment Property.
"Note" means any of the Phase Notes, as the context requires.
"Option" means the Option Agreement between the Authority and SUPERV ALU dated
October 13, 1998, pursuant to which the Authority had the right under certain circumstanc~s to
acquire the Redevelopment Property.
4
"Original Contract" means that certain Redevelopment Agreement between the
Redeveloper and the Authority dated as of March 29,2006.
"Parcel" means either Parcel A, Parcel B or Parcel C.
"Parcel A" means that portion of the Redevelopment Property described as such on
Schedule A and upon which Phase 2 will be developed.
"Parcel B" means that portion of the Redevelopment Property described as such on
Schedule A and upon which Phase 1 will be developed.
"Parcel C" means that portion of the Redevelopment Property. described as such on
Schedule A and upon which Phase 3 is anticipated to be developed.
"Party" means the Authority or the Redeveloper, as the context may require.
"Phase" means Phase 1, Phase 2 or Phase 3.
"Phase 1" means the development of approximately 250,000 square feet of office building
to be constructed on Parcel B in accordance with plans therefore approved by the City.
"Phase 2" means the development of approximately 200,000" square feet of office building
to be constructed on Parcel A in accordance with plans therefore approved by the City.
"Phase 3" means the development anticipated to take place on Parcel C as provided for in
Section 4.3 of this Agreement.
"Phase Note" or "Phase Notes" means the tax increment revenue note or notes which may
be issued by the Authority to the Redeveloper pursuant to Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
"Phase Bonds" means the tax exempt tax increment revenue bonds to be issued by the
Authority pursuant to Sections 3.3(d)(ii){ID or 3.3(d)(iii) of this Agreement.
"Prior Bonds" means the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2002A,
and any obligations issued to refinance such bonds.
"Project" means the Authority's Redevelopment Project No.2.
"Project Area" means the real property located within the boundaries of the Project.
"Public Redevelopment Costs" means the costs of acquiring and redeveloping the
Redevelopment Property to be reimbursed by the Authonty pursuant to Section 3.3 of this
Agreement.
"Public Redevelopment Cost Ledger" means an accounting ledger to be maintained by the
Authority upon which the Authority will record (a) Public Redevelopment Costs, evidence of
5
which has been submitted to the Authority by the Redeveloper and approved by the Authority
and (b) payment of Public Redevelopment Costs made to or as directed by the Redeveloper.
"Redeveloper" means Opus Northwest, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, its
successors and assigns.
"Redevelopment Property" means the real property described as such on Schedule A
attached to this Agreement.
"Scheduled Payment Date" means a payment date under the Phase Notes or Phase Bonds.
"Special Law" means Laws of Minnesota 2003, Chapter 127, Article 10, Section 3.
"State" means the State of Minnesota.
"SUPERV ALU" means SUPERV ALU INC, a Delaware corporation.
"SUPER V ALU Agreement" means that certain Redevelopment Agreement between the
Authority and SUPERV ALU dated July 20, 1998, as amended by a First Amendment to
Redevelopment Agreement dated February 18,2003.
"SUPERV ALU Purchase Agreement" means that certain Real Estate Purchase Agreement,
dated September 29,2005, as amended, between SUPERV ALU and the Redeveloper pursuant to
which the Redeveloper acquired the Redevelopment Property from SUPERV ALU.
"SUPERV ALU Warehouse" means the existing warehouse facility owned by
SUPERV ALU and located on the real property with the tax parcel identification number 25 117
22 11 0003. The phrase "SUPERV ALU Warehouse" shall also include the real property on
which the facility is located.
"Tax Increment" means that portion of the real property taxes paid with respect to the Tax
Increment District that is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to the Tax
Increment Act, less any deductions and payments required to be made by the Authority pursuant
to the Tax Increment Act or other law, and as further calculated in accordance with Section 6.3
hereof.
"Tax Increment Act" means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174-469.1799, as amended and as it may be further amended from time to time.
"Tax Increment District" means Tax Increment Financing District No.2-II created by the
Authority and City within the Project Area, as it may be modified from time to time.
"Tax Increment Plan" means the tax increment financing plan adopted by the Authority
in connection with its creation of the Tax Increment District, as amended and as it may be further
amended from time to time, which plan together with the information and findings contained
therein is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference.
6
"Termination Date" means the date that the Tax Increment District terminates.
.
"Unavoidable Delay" means delay beyond the reasonable control of the Party claiming
the benefit of such delay, which include, without limitation, the direct result of: (i) strikes or
other labor troubles; (ii) acts of God, fIfe or other casualty; (iii) acts of war or terrorism, (iv)
litigation commenced by third parties which directly results in delays; (v) the filing of a petition
which mandates delaying the effective date of any action required by this Agreement or
necessary to achieve its purpose; (vi) severe adverse weather conditions beyond those reasonably
foreseeable or commonly scheduled for in this State; (vi) acts or failures to act of any Federal,
State or local governmental unit except those provided for under this Agreement, or (vii) delay
resulting from the failure of another Party to timely perform its obligations hereunder.
7
ARTICLE II
Renresentations
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority. The Authority makes the following
representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part herein contained:
(a) The Authority is a public body corporate and politic duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State and is duly authorized to enter into this Agreement and perform its
obligations hereunder. To the best of the Authority's knowledge, performance of the Authority's
obligations under this Agreement do not conflict with any of its contracts, enabling legislation, or
governing documents.
(b) To the best of the Authority's knowledge and belief, the Authority has complied
with the Tax Increment Act in the creation of the Tax Increment District and is authorized by law
to provide the assistance contemplated by this Agreement to the Redeveloper in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement.
(c) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, materially limited by, or materially conflicts with or
results in a material breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of any restriction or any
evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Authority is
now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(d) The Authority has complied with the effective date provisions of the Special Law.
(e) The Authority will not modify or otherwise amend the Tax In'crement Plan in any
manner that adversely impacts the rights of the Redeveloper under this Agreement.
Section 2.2. Representations~ Covenants and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The
Redeveloper represents, warrants, and covenants to the following:
(a) The Redeveloper is a duly and legally formed limited liability company,
authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and, to the best of its knowledge, is not in
violation of any laws of the State or federal government, and has all necessary power and
authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) It is the intent of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements as
demand exists and, if constructed, the Redeveloper will, so long as in ownership, operate and
maintain the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and all
local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning,
building code, energy conservation, and public health laws and regulations).
(c) Except as may be shown in the Environmental Reports, the Redeveloper has
received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of
8
the Redeveloper with respect to the Minimum Improvements may be or will be in violation of
any environmental law or regulation and has no knowledge of any facts the existence of which
would cause it to be in violation of any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or
review procedure or which would give any person a valid claim under any such law regulation or
review procedure.
(d) Prior to undertaking construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements,
the Redeveloper will seek to obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and
approvals, and will seek to meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local,
state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before such Minimum
Improvements may be lawfully constructed.
(e) Neither the execution and delivery of tNs Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, materially limited by, or materially conflicts with or
results in a material breach of the terms, conditions or provisions of any restriction or any
evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper
is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(f) The redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property through the development of
the Minimum Improvements would not be fmancially feasible and the Redeveloper would not
undertake the Minimum Improvements, as proposed, without the financial assistance of the
Authority contemplated by this Agreement.
9
ARTICLE III
Redevelonment Pronosal: Public Assistance
Section 3.1. Redevelopment Proposal. (a) The Redeveloper has acquired fee simple title
to the Redevelopment Property from SUPERV ALU pursuant to the SUPERV ALU Purchase
Agreement. The Authority and the Redeveloper entered into the Original Contract to document
their respective rights and responsibilities concerning the redevelopment of the Redevelopment
Property. The Redeveloper's proposal for the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property has
changed in certain respects from the proposal contemplated at the time of execution of the
Original Contract. The Authority and the Redeveloper desire by executing this Agreement to
document their understandings and agreements concerning the current proposal for the
redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property and to amend and restate the Original Contract in
its entirety.
(b) The Authority acknowledges that the high costs associated with the redevelopment
of the Redevelopment Property wiUlikely make such redevelopment not economically feasible
absent public financial investment. Therefore, the Authority is willing, subject to the conditions
and provisions stated in this Agreement, to utilize Tax Increment through the issuance and
payment of the Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds to offset a portion of the extraordinary costs
associated with th~ redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property.
3.2 Demolition and Remediation. (a) The Authority and Redeveloper agree that
demolition of the improvements currently existing on the Redevelopment Property, and the
related environmental remediation, will facilitate the redevelopment of the Redevelopment
Property by making such property more appealing to prospective users. Therefore, the Authority
agrees that the cost of demolishing the improvements located on the Redevelopment Property at
the time that the Redeveloper acquired title to the Redevelopment Property and the cost of
remediation of adverse environmental conditions existing on the Redevelopment Property will
constitute Public Redevelopment Costs, subject to reimbursement by the Authority as provided
in this Agreement.
(b) The Redeveloper has commenced demolition of the improvements on the
Redevelopment Property. Prior to commencing demolition the Redeveloper submitted to the
Authority a demolition and site remediation plan, which included dust, and traffic control
measures to protect adjacent properties during the demolition activities. The demolition and site
remediation plan was approved by the Authority. The Redeveloper also submitted to the
Authority and the Authority approved a plan describing the maintenance of the Redevelopment
Property after completion of the demolition and remediation work and prior to the construction
of the Minimum Improvements. The plan provides that the entire Redevelopment Property will
be fenced after completion of the demolition. Any landscaping, seeding or other activities shown
on such plan submitted to and approved by the Authority shall be completed within thirty (30)
days after completion of the demolition and remediation activities on the Redevelopment
Property. If the Redeveloper fails to maintain the Redevelopment Property in accordance with
such plan, upon twenty (20) days written notice and opportunity to cure, the Authority or City
shall have the right to enter upon the Redevelopment Property for that purpose and assess the
10
cost of maintenance against the Redevelopment Property~ provided that such asseSSlllent shall
not reduce or otherwise affect Tax Increment pledged to Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds issued
pursuant to Section 3.3 hereof.
Section 3.3. Issuance of Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds. (a) The Authority
acknowledges that the successful redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property may require
that public assistance be provided to offset a portion of the costs of redevelopment of the Phases.
Therefore, the Authority agrees, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to
reimburse the Redeveloper, or third parties that incur such costs in coordination with the
Redeveloper, for a portion of such costs through the issuance and payment of the Phase Notes
and/or Phase Bonds. The costs to be reimbursed by the Authority are referred to herein as the
"Public Redevelopment Costs," as further described in Section 3.3(c).
(b) The Redeveloper's approved Master Development Plan for the development of the
Minimum Improvements provides for a build-out of- 746,000square feet of finished buildings.
Taking all costs into consideration, including but not limited to the cost of acquiring the
Redevelopment Property, demolition and remediation thereof, and construction of structured
parking, the Redeveloper's development pro forma shows a need for $27.25 of tax increment
assistance per gross square foot of finished building, ~.vhich includes costs of issuance and
Coverage, for each square foot of fInished building in order to achieve what Redeveloper
believes will be competitive rental rates and sales prices for the building( s) comprising the
Minimum Improvements. The anlount of Tax Increment assistance shall be calculated by
dividing the gross square footage of the Minilnum Improvements to be constructed. as shown on
the approved Master Developnlent Plan. by the maximum principal amount of the Phase Notes
and/or Phase Bonds.
(c) The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority's ability to use Tax Increment to
assist in the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property is subject to (i) certification by the
Redeveloper that it has incurred Public Redevelopment Costs at least equal in amount to $27.25
per gross square foot of finished Minimum Improvements and (ii) the limitations contained in the
Tax Increment Act, including, without limitation, Section 469.1763, subd. 3 and the Special
Law. As Public Redevelopment Costs are paid or incurred by the Redeveloper, the Redeveloper
shall certify them to the Authority and the Authority shall maintain them in the Public
Redevelopment Cost Ledger. Redeveloper's certifications of Public Redevelopment Costs shall
be accompanied by documentary evidence, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Authority, of
the Redeveloper's incurring of the Public Redevelopment Costs. It is agreed that if the following
costs, when certified by the Redeveloper, shall constitute Public Redevelopment Costs:
(A) The cost of acquiring the Redevelopment Property;
(B) Costs paid or incurred by the Redeveloper on or before April 5,
2008 for demolition and remediation, as described in Section 3.2,
the construction of parking facilities, on-site utilities, internal
roadways, lighting and landscaping, together with associated
engineering, legal, consulting and financing costs;
11
(C) Such other costs as are determined by the Authority to constitute
Public Redevelopment Costs.
In determining the incurrencecxistencc of Public Redevelopment Costs equal to the principal
amount of each Phase Note and/or Phase Bond, costs shown on the Public Redevelopment Cost
Ledger of the type described in Sections 3.3( c )(B) shall be first utilized and then, to the extent
such costs equal less than $27.25 per gross square foot of finished building, costs of the type
described in Sections 3.3(c)(A) and (C), in that order, shall be counted.
(d) The following tax increment financing options shall be available to the
Redeveloper:
(i) Pay-As- You-Go Phase Notes. Upon completion of a Phase of the
Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property and
certification of Public Redevelopment Costs pursuant to Section
3.3(c), and upon request of the Redeveloper the Authority shall issue
to the Redeveloper, or directly to its designee, a Phase Note in the
original principal amount of $27.25 per gross square foot of finished
building constructed within that Phase payable, together with interest
from the date that the Phase Note is issued until the earlier of the date
that the Phase Note has been paid in full or the termination of the Tax
Increment District at an annual interest rate recommended by the
Authority's financial advisor as being representative of interest then
paid on similar municipal obligations, but in no event less than the
then-current rate paid on a 10-year United States Treasury Bond plus
2.25%. Each Phase Note issued under this Section 3.3(d)(i) shall be
in the form of the note attached to this Agreement as Schedule C with
all blanks filled in, except (A) for such form changes as the sale of
such note shall reasonably require and (B) it is acknowledged that
such form assumes that each note shall have a parity call on Available
Tax Increment and that the Redeveloper may direct that a different
priority be established, as permitted below.
(ii) Phase Notes and Phase Bonds.
(A) At or P-,Qrior to commencement of construction of a Phase
of the Minimum Improvements, and upon request of the
Redeveloper, the Authority shall issue and sell one series of
taxable Phase Notes in a total principal amount not to
exceed $27.25 per gross square foot of finished building to
be constructed within the related Phase of Minimum
Improvements, the proceeds of which shall be disbursed to
the Redeveloper pursuant hereto. The Redeveloper shall
execute and deliver such limited guuranties and or cause to
be executed and recorded against the Phase and the related
pfarcel of the Redevelopment Property such instruments
12
and agreements as may be required to successfully market
and sell the Phase Notes. Proceeds of the Phase Notes shall
be used solely to pay costs of issuance, accrued interest and
unreimbursed Public Redevelopment Costs, as shown on
the Public Redevelopment Cost Ledger. To the extent that
Public Redevelopment Costs equal to net proceeds of the
Phase Notes have not been paid or incurred by the
Redeveloper as of the closing thereof, such proceeds shall
be deposited with the title company disbursing construction
loan proceeds, pursuant to a disbursing agreement
acceptable to the Authority, and shall be disbursedpaid to
the Redeveloper upon written notification by the Authority
that such Public Redevelopment Costs have been certified
as provided in this Agreement.
(B) Upon completion of the Minimum Improvements
and issuance of a Certificate of Completion by the
Authority with respect thereto, the Authority shall issue and
sell Phase Bonds in the maximum amount marketable to
the extent necessary to generate net proceeds sufficient to
for the purpose of refunding and retir~ing the Phase Notes
(without regard to the $27.25 per gross square foot
limitation but payable exclusively from proceeds thereof .
and Available Tax Increment). While the Authority and
Redeveloper expect (based upon current projections) that
the Authority will be able to issue the Phase Bonds in a
principal amount sufficient to provide for the payment in
full of principal of and accrued interest on the outstanding
Phase Notes, the initial principal amount of the Phase
Bonds will be contingent on a number of factors that could
result in the size of the Phase Bonds being insufficient to
produce net proceeds to refinance the Phase Notes in full.
In such event the Redeveloper shall, at the request of the
Authority, provide written assurances to the Authority, that
the Redeveloper will deliver to the Authority such funds as
shall be sufficient to pay the difference between the net
proceeds of the Phase Bonds and the outstanding principal
of and accrued interest on the Phase Notes. The actual
delivery of such funds shall be a condition precedent to the
Authority's obligation to issue the Phase Bonds. This
obligation shall be personal to the Redeveloper and shall
not bind any lender providing construction or permanent
financing, for the Minimum Improvements, any affiliate of
such lender or any successor owner of the Redevelopment
Property by reason of transfer by such lender.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority shall have the
13
option to delay issuance of the Phase Bonds temporarily or
for as long as the Agency is prohibited from refinancing the
Phase Notes pursuant to changes in federal law enacted
after the date of this Agreement. In such event, the
Authority shall use every reasonable effort to refinance the
Phase Notes with one or more series of additional taxable
obligations until the Phase Bonds can be legally issued or
until the Phase Notes, and successive refmancing
obligations, have been fully amortized.
(C) The Authority shall not be obligated to issue Phase Notes
under this clause (ii) if, upon the request of the
Redeveloper to do so, the Authority reasonably determines
that the issuance of the Phase Bonds pursuant to clause (B),
at the time it is anticipated such bonds would be issued,
will negatively impact the City's or Authority's ability to
issue other planned tax-exempt obligations qualified under
Section 265(b )(3)(B) of the United States Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Bank Qualified
Provision"); provided that upon issuance of the Phase
Notes for a Phase under this Section 3.3(d)(ii), the
obligation of Authority to issue Phase Bonds for that Phase
shall be binding except to the extent unlawful, but only if
completion of the Phase for which the Phase Bonds are
being issued and issuance of the Phase Bonds occurs in the
calendar year anticipated by the parties at the time that the
Phase Notes were issued. In the event that Phase Bonds are
not to be issued for any of the reasons stated in this Section
3.3(d)(ii)(C) other than illegality, the Redeveloper shall
have the option to (i) provide an irrevocable commitment
satisfactory to the Authority to reimburse the City or
Authority for any interest rate loss incurred by reason of
issuance of other Authority or City bonds not qualified
under the Bank Qualified Provision, in which event the
Authority shall issue the Phase Bonds~ -ef (ii) request that
the Authority issue taxable revenue bonds in lieu of the
Phase Bonds, in which event the Authority shall do so. or
(iii) request that the Authoritv issue tax-exempt Phase
Bonds in the first year that doing so will not because of the
Bank Qualified Provision. have an unreasonably negative
effect upon the Authority and/or City. in which event the
Authority shall do so.
(iii) Initial Permanent Tax-exempt Revenue Bonds.
14
(A) In connection with the construction of Phase 1 and, except
as otherwise provided herein, upon future request of the
Redeveloper in connection with the construction of Phase 2
and/or Phase 3, the Authority shall issue its Phase Bonds in
a total maximum original principal amount not to exceed
$27.25 per gross square foot of finished building planned to
be constructed in the related Phase of Minimum
Improvements as shown on the approved Master
Development Plan. The Phase Bonds shall be issued prior
to Commencement of construction of the related Minimum
Improvements and the net proceeds thereof shall be used to
reimburse the Redeveloper for Public Redevelopment
Costs, as shown in the Public Redevelopment Costs
Ledger.
(B) To the extent that Public Redevelopment Costs equal to net
proceeds of such bonds have not been paid or incurred by
the Redeveloper as of the closing thereof, such proceeds
shall be deposited with the title company disbursing
construction loan proceeds and shall be paid to the
Redeveloper upon written notification by the Authority that
such Public Redevelopment Costs have been certified.
(C) Except for reasonable costs of issuance, proceeds of Phase
Bonds issued pursuant to this Section 3.3(d)(iii) shall in all
events be held in escrow with the title company disbursing
construction loan proceeds or with the trustee for such
Phase Bonds until Commencement of construction of the
Minimum Improvements for the applicable Phase.
(D) The Phase Bonds will be special, limited obligations of the
Authority and will be payable solely from proceeds of the
Phase Bonds and Available Tax Increment. The Phase
Bonds will neither constitute nor give rise to a general
obligation or liability or a charge against the general credit
or taxing power of the Authority or the City.
(E) It has been determined and agreed that the financing option
described in this Section 3.3( d)(iii) shall be employed in
connection with the construction of Phase 1. However, the
Authority shall not be obligated to issue Phase Bonds under
this Section 3.3( d)(iii) in connection with construction of
Phase 2 or Phase 3 if, upon the request of the Redeveloper
to do so, the Authority reasonably determines that the
issuance of such Phase Bonds will negatively impact the
City's or Authority's ability to issue other planned tax-
15
exempt obligations qualified under Section 265(b)(3)(B) of
the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as'
amended unless the Redeveloper provides an irrevocable
commitment satisfactory to the Authority to reimburse the
City or Authority for any interest rate loss incurred by
reason of issuance of other Authority or City bonds not
qualified under the Bank Qualified Provision.
(e) The obligation of the Authority to issue Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds pursuant
to this Section 3.3(d) shall in all events be conditioned upon:
(i) No Event of Default having occurred which remains uncured;
(ii) The Redeveloper providing such assessment agreements,
guaranties and other security as shall be necessary to successfully
market such Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds;
(iii) There being no Authority or City financial obligation for costs of
issuance or any other costs in connection with such Phase Notes
and/or Phase Bonds;
(iv) The Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds being special, limited
obligations of the Authority payable solely from proceeds thereof,
Available Tax Increment and such limited guaranties as the
Redeveloper agrees to provide, as provided herein. The Notes will
neither constitute nor give rise to a general obligation or liability or
a charge against the general credit or taxing power of the Authority
or the City.
(v) With respect to any Phase Bonds to be issued on a tax -exempt
basis, the Authority having received an opinion from its bond
counsel that such Phase Bonds, as structured, can be issued as tax
exempt obligations; and
(vi) With respect to any Phase Notes or Phase Bonds to be issued prior
to commencement of the Phase for which the Phase Notes or Phase
Bonds are being issued, the Redeveloper having provided to the
Authority reasonable assurances that the Phase will be constructed
and that the Redeveloper has incurred or will incur Public
Redevelopment Costs to support the issuance of Phase Notes or
Phase Bonds. Evidence thereof shall include the existence of
binding construction contracts, committed construction loan
, financing, tenant leases and such other Redeveloper obligations,
commitments or assurances as may be legally given.
16
(f) Subject to Section 8.1(b) with respect to Phase 3, the Redeveloper shall have the
option to allocate Available Tax Increment among and between Phase Notes and Phase Bonds
issued in connection with Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 and may be reimbursed for Public
Redevelopment Costs incurred with respect to any Phase of Minimum Improvements fronl any
available Phase Note or Phase Bond proceeds.
(g) It is agreed that unused Coverage shall be the property of the Redeveloper or its
assigns and that the Authority shall, if requested, issue a separate tax increment revenue note
evidencing such amounts.
(h) The issuance of each Phase Note and/or Phase Bond pursuant to this Section
3.3(d) shall be authorized by a resolution of the Authority
(i) The Redeveloper shall be responsible for retaining and compensating an
underwriter to market the Phase Bonds and any Phase Notes to be sold to third parties, the
identity of which underwriter shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Authority.
Section 3.4. Authority and City Costs. In consideration of the Authority's covenants
and agreements set forth herein, the Redeveloper agrees that it will pay all out -of-pocket costs
incurred by the Authority or City with respect to the Authority's activities under this Agreement
and the City's activities in connection with the Redeveloper's development. The costs for which
the Redeveloper shall be responsible shall include all out-of-pocket costs incurred by the
Authority or City with respect to this Agreement or their activities in connection herewith,
including, without limitation, all fees, whether incurred before or after the date of this
Agreement, owed to traffic, development, fiscal, environmental, geotechnical and other
consultants, and all reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the Authority in connection with the
negotiation and preparation of this Agreement, land use approvals, the Planned Unit
Development Agreement, and all related documents or transactions, or in successfully enforcing
. the Redeveloper's obligations under this Agreement. All of the Authority's consultants shall be
under contract with the Authority, unless the Authority and the Redeveloper otherwise agree in
writing. The Authority shall provide to the Redeveloper requests for payment of the costs
incurred by the Authority from time to time. If requested by the Redeveloper, which requests
shall not occur more frequently than quarterly, the Authority will provide to the Redeveloper
statements or invoices documenting such costs. Such costs shall be payable by the Redeveloper
to the Authority within 21 days after request by the Authority. At the option of the Authority,
the Authority may require that the Redeveloper make payments of costs incurred by the
Authority directly to the persons or entities to whom such costs are owed, in which case such
payments shall be made within 21 days after the Authority provides documentation of the costs
to the Redeveloper. The Authority agrees that it will not incur such costs in an aggregate amount
exceeding $50,000 without notifying the Redeveloper of such fact and allowing the Redeveloper
to terminate this Agreement; provided, that the cost of updating the AUAR as described in
Section 4.2(d) shall not be considered when determining the amount of costs incurred by the
Authority and whether the $50,000 threshold has been reached.
Section 3.5. (This Section has been intentionally omitted.)
17
Section 3.6. Environmental and Soil Conditions. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties as to the environmental or soils conditions
existing on the Redevelopment or its fitness for construction of the Minimum Improvements.
Section 3.7. Joint Use Property. The Joint Use Property is an approximately three (3) acre
parcel of real property located near the Redevelopment Property and is described on Schedule B.
The City currently uses the Joint Use Property for snow storage purposes under the terms of a
lease with the Redeveloper. Pursuant to the Master Development Plan and related agreements
between the City and Redeveloper, the Redeveloper is required to make certain regional pond
and trail improvements to the Joint Use Property and, upon completion thereof, convey the Joint
Use Property to the City.
Section 3.8. SUPERV ALU Agreement and Option. At the time that the Redeveloper
acquired the Redevelopment Property the SUPER V ALU Agreement and the Option were
terminated by SUPERV ALU and the Authority.
18
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Imorovements
Section 4.1. Construction of Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that,
market conditions permitting with respect to Phase 3, it will construct the Minimum
Improvements on the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the approved Master
Development Plan and that so long as it owns the Minimum Improvements, or portions thereof,
it will maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements, including but not limited to all
landscaping and exterior improvements, to be maintained, preserved and kept with the
appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in commercially reasonable repair and
condition.
Section 4.2. Master Development Plan.
(a) The Authority's willingness to provide the assistance contemplated by this
Agreement to the Redeveloper is predicated upon and subject to the Redeveloper's agreement
that it will construct the Minimum Improvements as provided herein and that the Minimum
Improvements will be of such quality and nature as will satisfy the Authority's and City's goals
for the development of the Redevelopment Property which will require the approval of planned
unit development ("PUD") zoning for the Redevelopment Property. Therefore, the Redeveloper
applied for and obtained City PUD zoning approval. As a part of that process the Redeveloper
prepared and the City approved a Master Development Plan for the redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Property. The Master Development Plan contains, among other information, the
following:
(i) A site plan indicating the existing and proposed uses, gross floor area, lot
coverage, height, parking and density computations;
(ii) Text describing the proposed Minimum Improvements;
(iii) A vicinity map;
(iv) A map showing the Master Plan Boundaries and the relationship of the
area to surrounding uses and structures;
(v) A proposed circulation plan including projections of traffic volumes
within the plan area and volumes generated by the proposed plan that
would be added to the streets in the vicinity;
(vi) A preliminary development schedule indicating the sequence and timing
of the development;
(vii) A storm water retention plan;
(viii) A landscaping plan; and
19
(ix) A description of building materials.
(b) The Master Development Plan shows a development of 746,000 square feet, to be
either leased or sold by the Redeveloper, as follows:
(i) At least 75% of square footage constructed upon the Redevelopment
Property will be for office users. Office buildings shall be Class B or higher, as
generally defined by the Builders Owners and Managers Association International
(BOMA).
(ii) Up to 25% of the square footage of buildings constructed upon the
Redevelopment Property may be for such uses as (i) a hotel, (ii) medical
manufacturing, (iii) research and development, (iv) uses substantially similar to
(ii) and (iii) and (v) ancillary retail (the "Restricted Uses").
(iii) Any hotel facility constructed on the Redevelopment Property shall be
constructed as at least a two-diamond facility, as described by the American
Automobile Association or a two-star facility, as described by the Mobil Travel
Guide.
(iv) Total ancillary retail, including retail pads, shall not exceed 15,000 square
feet, ancillary retail will not include any business whose primary purpose is the
sale of coffee and all ancillary retail construction shall occur subsequent to or
concurrently with office construction.
(c) Changes to the Master Development Plan are subject to approval of the City in
accordance with the provisions of the pun agreement between the City and the Redeveloper
negotiated as a part of the PUD approval process. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to
relieve the Redeveloper of its obligations to comply with the requirements of the City's normal
construction permitting process or to restrict the City in the exercise of its discretion in granting
any additional approvals of Redeveloper's development.
(e) In connection with an, earlier proposal to redevelop the Redevelopment Property
the City caused to be prepared an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (the "AUAR") to assess
the impacts of that proposal. The Redeveloper has taken such actions as were necessary to
update the AUAR for its proposed development to comply with applicable law and has submitted
the same to the City.
Section 4.3. Construction of Phases. (a) The Redeveloper has entered into agreements
with a tenant which will lease Phase 1 and Phase 2 (the "Leases"). Therefore, the Redeveloper
agrees that, subject to Unavoidable Delay and no uncured breach of the Leases by such tenant, it
will Commence construction of Phase 1 on or about May 2007 and Commence construction of
Phase 2 on or about May 2009. Once construction of Phase 1 or Phase 2 is Commenced
pursuant to the preceding sentence, Redeveloper shall be unconditionally obligated to Complete
20
such Phase. Subject to Unavoidable Delay, Phase 1 shall be Completed on or about July 2008
and Phase 2 shall be Completed on or about. July 2010.
(b) The parties acknowledge that the timing of the development of Phase 3 is subject
to market conditions. The Redeveloper agrees that, subject to Section 8.1 (b), it will actively and
diligently market Parcel 3 to prospective office users. When the Redeveloper receives user
commitments sufficient to warrant proceeding with Phase 3, it will deliver a Go-Ahead Letter to
the Authority, which will include:
(a) Identification of the known user or users and whether the user(s) will own
or lease.
(b) Number of square feet to be constructed.
(c) Estimated construction cost.
(d) Construction schedule.
(e) Preliminary construction plans.
(c) The Authority staff shall have twenty '(20) days after receipt of such Go-Ahead
Letter to review the information submitted to determine if the proposed Phase 3 is consistent
with Section 4.2(b) and terms of the PUD. If the Authority staff determines that the proposed
Phase 3 is consistent with Section 4.2(b) and the terms of the PUD, they will so notify the
Redeveloper, and the Redeveloper may proceed with the construction of Phase 3. If the
Authority staff determines that the proposed Phase 3 does not conform to Section 4.2(b) and the
terms of the PUD, they will notify the Redeveloper of such fact detailing the ways in which the
plans for Phase 3 must be modified or the terms of this Agreement and/or the PUD amended.
The Redeveloper shall not proceed with Phase 3 until the Authority has given its written
approval.
(d) Until construction of the Minimum Improvements has been completed, the
Redeveloper shall make construction progress reports, at such times as may reasonably be
requested by the Authority as to the actual progress of the Redeveloper with respect to such
construction.
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of each Phase of
the Minimum Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating
solely to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Phase, as evidenced by issuance by
the City of its certificate of occupancy, and upon request by Redeveloper, the Authority will
furnish the Redeveloper with a certificate of completion for the Minimum Improvements in a
form acceptable for recording in the County Recorder's Office or the Office of the Registrar of
Titles. The certificate of completion shall be furnished to Redeveloper within ten (10) business
day after request by Redeveloper, and shall conclusively satisfy and terminate the agreements
and covenants in this Agreement of the Redeveloper, and its successors and assigns, to construct
the Phase. Such certification and such determination shall not constitute evidence of compliance
21
.
with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Redeveloper to any Holder of a Mortgage, or any
insurer of a Mortgage, securing money loaned for construction of the Phase, or any part thereof.
22
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance.
(a) The Redeveloper will provide and maintain or cause to be provided and
maintained at all times during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements and, from
time to time at the request of the Authority, furnish the Authority with proof of payment of
premiums on:
(i) Builder's risk or hazard insurance, written on the so-called "Builder's Risk --
Completed Value Basis," in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the
insurable value of the Minimum Improvements Phase to be constructed (excluding
excavation, grading and foundation construction) at the date of completion, and with
coverage available in nonreporting form on the so called "all risk" form of policy.
(ii) Commercial general liability insurance (including operations, contingent
liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and contractual liability
insurance) with limits against bodily injury and property damage of not less than
$2,000,000.00 for each occurrence (to accomplish the above-required limits, an umbrella
excess liability policy may be used). Redeveloper shall satisfy the conditions of this
Section 5.1(a)(ii) by naming the Authority as an additional insured on its general liability
policies.
(iii) Worker's compensation insurance, with statutory coverage and employer's
liability protection.
(b) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and
maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper which are
authorized under the laws of the State to assume the risk covered thereby. The Redeveloper will
deposit annually with the Authority binders evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or
certificates of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless
otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain a provision that
the insurer shall not cancel or modify it without giving written notice to the Redeveloper and the
Authority at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. Not
less than fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration" of any policy, the Redeveloper shall furnish the
Authority evidence satisfactory to the Authority that the policy has been renewed or replaced by
another policy conforming to the provisions of this Article V of this Agreement, or that there is
no necessity therefor under the terms hereof. In lieu of separate policies, the Redeveloper may
maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the
coverage required herein, in which event the Redeveloper shall deposit with the Authority a
certificate 9r certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in force upon the
Minimum Improvements.
23
(c) The Redeveloper agrees to notify the Authority with reasonable promptness in the
case of damage to or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion thereof resulting
from fire or other casualty during construction thereof. Subject to the rights of any Holder and
any instruments evidencing and securing the Mortgage:
(i) In the event of any such damage or destruction, the Redeveloper will
within a reasonable time and with due diligence repair, reconstruct and
restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an
improved condition or value as existed prior to the event causing such
damage and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair,
reconstruction and restoration, the Redeveloper will. apply the Net
Proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the
Redeveloper to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof.
(ii) The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration
of the Minimum Improvements, whether or not the Net Proceeds of
insurance received by the Redeveloper for such purposes are sufficient to
pay for the same. Any Net Proceeds remaining after completion of such
repairs, construction and restoration shall be remitted to the Redeveloper.
24
ARTICLE VI
Taxes: Tax Increment
Section 6.1. Use of Tax Increment. The Redevelopment Property is located in the Tax
Increment District. Subject to the limitations contained in the Note, the Authority hereby pledges
to the payment of the Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds the Available Tax Increment. Any
amounts deducted from Tax Increment in determining Available Tax Increment shall be the
Authority's property and the Authority shall be free to use such funds for any purpose it
determines.
Section 6.2. Redeveloper's Representations Concerning Notes. Except with respect to the
date of certification of the Tax Increment District, the certified original tax capacity of the Tax
Increment District, the debt service schedule for the Prior Bonds and compliance by the
Authority and the City with the Special Law, the Redeveloper makes the following
representations to the Auth<;>rity with respect to the issuance of any Phase Note to the
Redeveloper under this Agreement:
(a) The Redeveloper has not relied on any representations of the Authority or City, or
any of their officers, agents, or employees, and has not relied on any opinion of any attorney of
the Authority or City, as to the Federal or State income tax consequences relating to the purchase
and ownership of the Phase Note by the Redeveloper.
(b) The Redeveloper is sufficiently knowledgeable and experienced in financial and
business matters, including the purchase and ownership of obligations of a nature similar to the
Phase Note, to be able to evaluate the risks and merits of the purchase and ownership of the
Phase Note. The Redeveloper has been made aware of the security for the Phase Note and the
proposed uses of the proceeds of the Note, and has received the cooperation of the Authority and
City in undertaking any due diligence that the Redeveloper has deemed necessary or appropriate.
(c) The Redeveloper understands that the portion of the Tax Increment pledged to the
payment of the Phase Note pursuant to this Agreement is the sole source of money that is
pledged and will be available for the payments due under the Phase Note; that the Authority is
not under any obligation to repurchase the Phase Note from the Redeveloper under any
circumstances; that the Phase Note is not a general obligation of the Authority or City; and that,
if the Tax Increment pledged to the payment of the Phase Note pursuant to this Agreement is not
sufficient to make the payments due under the Phase Note in full, no right will exist to have taxes
levied by the Authority or City for the payment of the unpaid amounts due under the Phase Note.
(d) The Redeveloper understands that the Tax Increment necessary to pay the Phase
Note has been estimated assuming that the Minimum Improvements will have certain market
values on certain dates. All estimates of Tax Increment that have been prepared by or on behalf
of the Authority or City have been done for the Authority's and City's use only and neither the
Authority, City nor their consultants shall have liability to the Redeveloper if the actual Tax
Increment is less than the amounts estimated. In the event, among other things, the Redeveloper
fails to complete the Minimum Improvements in a timely manner or the market value of the
25
Minimum Improvements does not reach certain levels, the Tax Increment pledged to the
payment of the Phase Note may be inadequate to pay total principal of and interest on the Phase
Note.
(e) The Redeveloper understands that the Phase Note is not registered or otherwise
qualified for sale or transfer under the securities laws and regulations of the State or under the
Federal securities laws or regulations, the Phase Note is not listed on any stock or other securities
exchange, and the Phase Note will carry no rating from any rating service.
No Phase Note may be transferred to any third party without the prior written approval of
the Authority, except that a Phase Note may be pledged to a lender providing financing for
construction of the Phase for which the Phase Note is issued without the consent of but upon
written notice to the Authority. Any transferee of a Phase Note shall be required to execute an
instrument making the representations to the Authority contained in this Section.
Section 6.3. Authority Allocations. In order to implement the Tax Increment payments
with respect to the Prior Bonds and the Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds, it will be necessary for
the Authority to allocate Available Tax Increment between Existing Tax Increment received
before and after March 29, 2006, between Existing Tax Increment and New Tax Increment and
between New Tax Increment derived from Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C. For such purpose,
the following rules shall be applied:
(a) For purposes of calculating Tax Increment to be pledged to the Phase Bonds for
Phase 1, the Base Value attributable to Parcel B shall be Fifty Thousand Seven
Hundred Twelve Dollars ($50,712). For purposes of calculating Existing Tax
Increment following issuance of the Phase Bonds for Phase 1, there shall be
deducted from the Base Value attributable to the balance of the Tax Increment
District, exclusive of Parcel A, the sum of Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve
Dollars ($50,712).
(b) For purposes of calculating Tax Increment to be pledged to the Phase Notes
and/or Phase Bonds for Phase 2, the Base Value attributable to Parcel A shall be
Forty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine Dollars ($48,929). For
purposes of calculating Existing Tax Increment following issuance of the Phase
Bonds for Phase 2, in addition to the Base Value reduction described in Section
6.3(a) there shall be deducted from the Base Value attributable to the balance of
the Tax Increment District, exclusive of Parcels A and B, the sum of Forty-Eight
Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine Dollars ($48,929).
(c) For purposes of calculating Tax Increment to be pledged to the Phase Notes
and/or Phase Bonds for Phase 3, the Base Value attributable to Parcel C shall be
Forty-Three Thousand Nine Dollars ($43,009). For purposes of calculating
Existing Tax Increment following issuance of the Phase Bonds for Phase 3, in
addition to the Base Value reductions described in Sections 6.3(a) and (b) there
shall be deducted from the Base Value attributable to the balance of the Tax
26
Increment District, exclusive of Parcels A, B and C, the sum of Forty-Three
Thousand Nine Dollars ($43,009).
The Authority shall deliver to or at the direction of the Redeveloper ucconlpuny each Tax
Increment payment with a written accounting of such calculations.
27
ARTICLE VII
FiDaDcin!!
Section 7.1. Limitation Upon Encumbrance of Property. Prior to the completion of a
Phase, as evidenced by the Redeveloper's receipt of a certificate of completion pursuant to
Section 4.4, neither the Redeveloper nor any successor in interest to the Redevelopment
Property, or any part thereof, shall engage in any fmancing or any other transaction creating any
mortgage or other encumbrance or lien upon the Redevelopment Property, whether by express
agreement or operation of law, or suffer any encumbrance or lien to be made on or attach to the
Redevelopment Property, except for the purposes of obtaining funds only to the extent necessary
for acquiring and constructing the Phase without the prior written approval of the Authority;
provided, that the Redeveloper may contest in good faith any mechanic's liens so long as the
Redeveloper diligently pursues such contest and keeps the Authority informed as to the progress
of such efforts.
28
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions A!!ainst Assi!!Dment and Transfer.. Indemnification
Section 8.1. Prohibition Against Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement. (a)
Except as otherwise provided in Section 8.1 (b), the Redeveloper represents and agrees that prior
to completion of construction of a Phase of the Minimum Improvements, as evidenced by the
City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Phase, except for (a) transfers to Affiliates,
(b) agreements to lease or sell upon completion of a Phase (c) conveyances to a third party
accompanies by a Redeveloper contractual obligation to such party to construct a Phase of
Minimum Improvements thereon, (d) easements and covenants granted as a part of the
development process and (e) by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining
fmancing (including the issuance of Phase Notes and/or Phase bonds) necessary to enable the
Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, to
perform its obligations with respect to constructing the Phase under thjs Agreement, including
the cost of demolition and remediation, and any other purpose authorized by this Agreement, the
Redeveloper (except as so authorized) has not made or created, and will not make or create, or
suffer to be made or created, any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any
trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the
Redevelopment Property or any part thereof or any interest herein or therein, or any contract or
agreement to do any of the same, without the prior written approval of the Authority. The
Authority agrees that it will consider reasonable requests by Redeveloper's construction
lender(s) and/or Phase Note and/or Phase Bond purchasers or trustees. to subordinate the
Authority's rights with respect to the Redevelopment Property and Minimum Improvements and
with respect to the application of insurance proceeds to the rights of such lender(s).
In the absence of specific written agreement by the Authority to the contrary, no such
transfer or approval thereof by the Authority shall be deemed to relieve the Redeveloper, or any
other party bound in any way by this Agreement from any of its obligations herein contained.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection 8.1(a), the parties acknowledge that the Redeveloper
has entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of Parcel C (the "Parcel C Purchase
Agreement) to Cargill, Inc. or a designated Affiliate thereof ("Cargill"), which is contingent upon
execution of a Parcel C redevelopment agreement between the Authority and Cargill (the
"Cargill Agreement"). Upon execution of the Cargill Agreement and conveyance of Parcel C to
Cargill pursuant to the Parcel C Purchase Agreement, all provisions of this Agreement pertaining
to Parcel C shall terminate, the development of Parcel C shall be controlled exclusively by the
Cargill Agreement and the Redeveloper shall be relieved of all obligations contained in this
Agreement pertaining to the development and operation of Parcel C while all other provisions of
this Agreement pertaining to Parcels A and B shall remain in full force and effect. In the event
that (i) the Authority and Cargill do not reach agreement regarding the Cargill Agreement or (ii)
the 'Cargill Agreement is executed but closing on the conveyance of Parcel C from the
Redeveloper to Cargill does not occur as provided in the Parcel C Purchase Agreement, then the
Parcel C Purchase Agreement will terminate by its terms and the development of Parcel C shall
be controlled by this Agreement.
29
Section 8.2. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) Except for the negligence of the
Indemnified Parties, the Redeveloper, on behalf of the Redeveloper, its agents, successors and
assigns, releases from and covenants and agrees that the Authority; the City, and the governing
body members, officers, agents, servants and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") thereof shall
not be liable for and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties
against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or
about or resulting from any defect or condition in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum
Improvements.
(b) Except for the negligence of the Indemnified Parties, the Redeveloper agrees to
release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties and further agrees to hold
the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action, liability (including reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of defense), or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity
whatsoever, including the Redeveloper and its successors and assigns, arising or purportedly
arising from the construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Minimum
Improvements, including, but not limited to, liabilities and claims related to or arising from the
presence of adverse environmental conditions, soils and geotechnical conditions or any other
matter relating to the physical condition of the Redevelopment Property, but excluding any claim
for consequential, punitive or similar-type damages made by the Authority. In the event of a
claim against the Indemnified Parties that is or may be the subject of this indemnity, upon
request of the Redeveloper the Indemnified Parties shall tender the same to the Redeveloper for
defense in sufficient time to avoid prejudice to the Redeveloper.
(c) Indemnities provided under this Section 8.2 shall in no event be payable from Tax
Increment previously pledged to Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds nor from the proceeds of
Phase Notes and/or Phase Bonds prior to their disbursement to the Redeveloper.
(de) The Redeveloper acknowledges and agrees that it shall rely solely on its own
investigation, testing and due diligence in regard to the acquisition of the Redevelopment
Property and the development, design and construction of the Minimum Improvements and that
neither the Authority nor the City have made any representation, warranties or agreements to or
with the Redeveloper regarding the physical condition of the Redevelopment Property,
environmental, soils or geotechnical conditions or the suitability of the Redevelopment Property
for the development and construction of the Minimum Improvements.
30
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The telm "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever
it is used in this Agreement (unless the context otherwise provides); (i) any failure by the
Authority or Redeveloper to substantially observe or perform any material covenant, condition,
obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed hereunder or (ii) a material
breach of any representation set forth herein.
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, except as
provided in Section 9 .2(b) the non-defaulting party may immediately suspend its performance
under this Agreement and may take the following actions after providing thirty (30) days written
notice to the defaulting party, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said
thirty (30) days or, if the alleged default cannot be cured within said thirty (30) days, within such
time as is required to cure assuming the defaulting party diligently pursues such cure:
(a) Pursue whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative action, which
may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to
enforce the performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this
Agreement.
(b) In the event of a default by the Redeveloper prior to the issuance of a Phase Note
and/or Phase Bonds with respect to the Phase for which the default is alleged, the Authority may
refuse to issue said Phase Note and/or Phase Bonds until the alleg~d default is cured; provided,
however, that once a Phase Note and/or Phase Bonds are issued the Authority shall have no right
to terminate such Phase Note and/or Phase Bonds or refuse to make payment thereon in
accordance with the terms thereof.
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the
Authority or Redeveloper is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies,
but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other
remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute.
No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any
such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power
may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle
the Authority or the Redeveloper to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary
to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article IX.
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the
other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be
deemed to waive any other concurr~nt, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
31
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Representatives Not Individually Liable. No member, official, or employee
of either party shall be personally liable to the other party, or any successor in interest, in the
event of any default or breach or on any obligations under the terms of the Agreement.
Section 10.2. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and
Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be
disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 10.3. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to
the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and
(a) in the case of the Redeveloper, is addressed to or delivered personally to the
Redeveloper at 10350 Bren Road West, Minnetonka, MN 55343; and
(b) in the case of the Authority, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Authority
at 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343, Attention: Executive Director,
or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to t~me,
designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. Mailed notices shall be
deemed duly delivered two (2) business days after the date of mailing.
Section 10.4. Disclaimer of Relationships. The Redeveloper acknowledges that nothing
contained in this Agreement nor any act by the Authority or the Redeveloper shall be deemed or
construed by the Redeveloper or by any third person to create any relationship of third-party
beneficiary, principal and agent, limited or general partner, or joint venture between the
Authority and/or the Redeveloper and any third party.
Section 10.5. Modifications. This Agreement may be modified solely through written
amendments hereto executed by the Redeveloper and the Authority.
Section 10.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed In any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 10.7. Judicial Interpretation. Should any provision of this Agreement require
judicial interpretation, the court interpreting or construing the same shall not apply a presumption
that the terms hereof shall be more strictly construed against one party by reason of the rule of
construction that a document is to be construed more strictly against the party who itself or
through its agent or attorney prepared the same, it being agreed that the agents and attorneys of
both parties have participated in the preparation hereof.
32
Section 10.8. Business Subsidy Agreements. Because the cost to the Redeveloper of
acquiring the Redevelopment Property exceeds the assessor's fair market value thereof for taxes
payable in 2006, the so-called "redevelopment" exception of Minnesota Statutes, Section
116J.993, subdivision 3, clause (17), is met and the financial assistance being provided by the
Authority to the Redeveloper does not constitute a business subsidy under the Minnesota
Business Subsidy Law, Minnesota Statutes, sections 116J.993 to 116J.995. Therefore, the
Redeveloper will not be required to enter into a business subsidy agreement with respect to such
assistance.
Section 10.9. Effect of Termination of Agreement. In the event that this Agreement is
terminated pursuant to any provision hereof, including, without limitation, Sections 3.7, 4.2(a),
9.2 or 10.9, or by court order, all provisions hereof shall terminate except that the Redeveloper's
representations and agreements under Section 2.2, Section 3.4 (with respect to costs incurred
prior to such termination) and Section 8.2 and the Authority's representations under Section 2.1
shall survive such termination for a period of one (1) year and any cause of action arising
hereunder prior to such termination shall not be affected during such one-year period.
Section 10.10. Cooperation and Fair Dealin~. (a) The Authority shall reasonably
cooperate with and assist the Redeveloper in achieving the redevelopment contemplated by this
Agreement, including in connection with the securing of such approvals of governmental units as
may be legally required.
(b) Actions, consents and approvals required to be given by the terms of this Agreement
shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed and the parties hereto shall in all
matters act reasonably and in good faith.
Section 10.11. Estoppels. Upon the reasonable request of the Redeveloper and at
Redeveloper's expense, the Authority shall provide to the Redeveloper, or to such party as
directed by the Redeveloper, its certificate evidencing the effectiveness of this Agreement and,
assuming the same be true, that the Redeveloper is not in default of any of its terms.
Section 10.12. Unavoidable Delay. Whenever under the terms of this Agreement an
action is required upon a specified date or within a specified period, the obligation to perform in
accordance therewith shall be subject to Unavoidable Delay.
33
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly executed
in its name and behalf and the Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its
name and behalf on or as of the date first above written.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY
OF HOPKINS
By
By
OPUS NORTHWEST, LLC
By
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2007, by
and , the
and of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City
of Hopkins, a public body politic and corporate, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _,
2007, by , the
of Opus Northwest, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
34
SCHEDULE A
Description of Redevelopment Property
Parcel A:
Parcel B:
Parcel C:
SCHEDULE B
Description of Joint Use Property
SCHEDULE C
Form of Phase Note
$
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT IN AND FOR
THE CITY OF HOPKINS
LIMITED REVENUE TAX INCREMENT NOTE
(OPUS CORPORATION NORTH ANNEX PHASE NOTE NO. --->
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Hopkins, Minnesota
(the "Authority"), hereby acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received, promises to
pay to the order of Opus Northwest, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, or its
permitted assigns (the "Owner"), solely from the source, to the extent and in the manner
hereinafter provided, the principal amount of this Note, being
Dollars ($ ) (the "Principal
Amount"), together with interest thereon at the rate of percent
( %) per annum (the "Rate") said amount to be paid commencing on 1,
200 , and continuing on each February 1 and August 1, thereafter to and including February 1,
20_. (the "Scheduled Payment Dates"). Interest shall accrue from and after issuance of this
Note, shall be added to principal on August 1, 20_ and shall thereafter be paid semi-annually.
The term of this Note shall continue until the entire Principal Amount of and interest under this
Note have been paid or until , 20_, whichever is earlier. Interest shall be
computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve (12) 30-day months.
Each payment on this Note is payable in any coin or currency of the United States of
America which on the date of such payment is legal tender for public and private debts and shall
be made by check or draft made payable to the Owner and mailed to the Owner at its postal
address within the United States which shall be designated from time to time by the Owner.
The Note is a special and limited obligation and not a general obligation of the Authority,
which has been issued by the Authority pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution
and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes~ Section 469.178, subdivision
4, to aid in fmancing a "project", as therein defined, of the Authority consisting generally of
defraying certain public redevelopment costs incurred and to be incurred by the Authority within
and for the benefit of its Redevelopment Project No.2 (the "Project").
TillS NOTE IS NOT A DEBT OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS OR THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA (THE "STATE"), AND NEITHER THE CITY, THE STATE NOR ANY
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF SHALL BE LIABLE ON THE NOTE, NOR
SHALL TillS NOTE BE PAYABLE OUT OF ANY FUNDS OR PROPERTIES OTHER
THAN THE AVAILABLE TAX INCREMENT, AS DEFINED BELOW.
The Scheduled Payment of this Note due on any Scheduled Payment Date is payable
solely from and only to the extent of Available Tax Increment, which consists of a portion of the
real property taxes received as tax increment by the Authority with respect to the Authority's
Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11. Available Tax Increment, with respect to each
Scheduled Payment Date, shall have the meaning given to such term in that certain
Redevelopment Agreement between the Authority and the Owner dated as of
, 2006 (the "Contract"). If on any Scheduled Payment Date there is
available to the Authority insufficient Available Tax Increment to pay all amounts due on such date,
the amount of such deficiency shall be added to principal on such date.
This Note is one of a series of notes issued or to be issued pursuant to the Contract, which
additional notes have been or will be issued on a parity basis with this Note. Available Tax
Increment shall on each Scheduled Payment Date be paid on a pro-rata basis on each note issued
under the Contract based upon the relative outstanding principal amount of such notes.
The Authority shall pay on each Scheduled Payment Date to the Owner the Available
Tax Increment. Payment shall be first applied to accrued interest and then to the Principal
Amount. If not terminated sooner pursuant to the terms of this Note or the Contract, on February
1, 20_, the Authority's payment obligations under this Note shall terminate and this Note shall
no longer be an obligation of the Authority.
This Note shall not be payable from or constitute a charge upon any funds of the
Authority, and the Authority shall not be subject to any liability hereon or be deemed to have
obligated itself to pay hereon from any funds except Available Tax Increment, and then only to
the extent and in the manner herein specified.
The Owner shall never have or be deemed to have the right to compel any exercise of any
taxing power of the Authority or of any other public body, and neither the Authority nor any
director, commissioner, council member, board member, officer, employee or agent of the
Authority, nor any person executing or registering this Note shall be liable personally hereon by
reason of the issuance or registration hereof or otherwise.
This Note shall not be transferable or assignable, in whole or in part, by the Owner
without the prior written consent of the Authority, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed.
This Note is issued pursuant to Resolution _ of the Authority and is entitled to the
benefits thereof, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to have happened,
and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Note have been done, have
happened, and have been performed in regular and due form, time, and manner as required by
law; and that this Note, together with all other indebtedness of the Authority outstanding on the
date hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery, does not cause the indebtedness of
the Authority to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation thereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the
City of Hopkins, by its Board of Commissioners, has caused this Note to be executed by the
manual signatures of the and the of
the Authority and has caused this Note to be dated , 200_.
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the
Authority, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Registration
Registered Owner
Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Federal Tax I.D. #:
Signature of Executive Director
, ,
December 2006 Update
to the
May Updated Alternatiye Urban Areawide
Review
for the
Excelsior Crossings Office Development
Hopkins, Minnesota
City of lIopkins
For 10-Day Review December 5, 2006 through December 18, 2006
Prepared By
RLK Incorporated
6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Tel 952-933-0972
Fax 952-933-1153
www.rlkinc.com
City of Hopkins
1010 Fi rst Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343-9475
Tel 952-935-8474
Fax 952-935-1834
www.hopkinsmn.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
DECEMBER 2006 UPDATED AUAR
1. Project Title........ ............................................................ ........ ........ ...................................... ........... ....... 2
2. Proposer ......................................................................... ..... .................................................................... 3
3. RGU ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
4. Reason for AUAR Preparation ....... .... ......... ...... ........ .... ...... .......... .......... .......................... ..... ...... ...........3
5. Project Location...................................................................................................................................... 3
6. Description................................................................................................................... ...........................3
7. Project Magnitude Data........................................................... ...............................................................6
8. Permits and Approvals Required..... .................... ................................................................................... 6
9. Land Use......................................... ....................................... .................................................................7
10. Cover Types................................................................................................... ......................................... 7
11. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources .............................................................................8
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources ................... ................................................................................. 8
13 . Water Use.... ............................. ...... ............ ...................... ...................................................................... 9
14. Water-Related Land Use Management District................. ..... ........... .....................................................9
15 . Water Surface Use.................................................................................................................................. 9
16. Erosion and Sedimentation ............. ........................................................................................................ 9
17 . Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff .................................................................................................... 9
18. Water Quality: Wastewaters................ ...... ..... ..................................................................................... .11
19. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions ........... ...................... ................................................................13
20. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks .................................................................................13
21. Traffic................................................................................................................................................... 14
22. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions............ ................................................................................................ .16
23. Sanitary Source Air Emissions ............ ................... .................... .............. ............................ ............... .16
24. Odors, Noise and Dust................................................................................................................... ...,... 16
25. Sensitive Resources .............................................................................................................................. 17
26. Adverse Visual Impacts....................................................................................................................... .17
27. Compatibility with Plans............................... .................. .................................................................... .17
28. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services .......................................................................................18
29. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 18
30. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ............ ....................................... .............. .... .... ......... ..............19
31. Summary or Issues.......................... .......................... ............................................................................ 19
RGU Certification....... ........................ ........................ ................... ............................................................ .20
MITIGATION PLAN (No Change)
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page i
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX (Figures/Attachments)
USGS Map... ................ .......................................... ............ ........ ....................................................... Figure 1
City of Hopkins Map.... .......................................... ............ ........... ............................................. ....... Figure 2
AL T A Land Title Survey....................................... ............ ..... ...... .................................................... Figure 3
Preliminary Site Plan.................................................................... ..................................................... Figure 4
Proposed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan ................................................................... Figure 5
December 2006 Update to the May 2006 Updated AUAR Traffic Impact Study.................... Attachment A
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page ii
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Version 2/99 - editorial corrections May, 05
DECEMBER 2006 UPDATE
TO THE
MAY UPDATED ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE
REVIEW FOR THE EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
Notes to Reviewers: Comments on this December 2006 Update To The Updated Alternative Urban
Areawide Review For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development (December 2006 Update) should
be submitted to the City of Hopkins, the Responsible Governmental Unit, during the 10-working
day comment period following publication or receipt of this December 2006 Update as provided in
Minnesota Rules. This is an update to a previously approved AUAR. Notice of the December 2006
Update was published in the EQB Monitor on December 4, 2006.
State agencies and the Metropolitan Council have 10 working days after receipt of this December
2006 Update to deliver comments to, or to file an objection with, the City. State agencies and the
Metropolitan Council may file objections only if the agency or the Metropolitan Council has
evidence that the revised document contains inaccurate or incomplete information relevant to the
identification and mitigation of potentially significant environmental impacts or that the proposed
plan for mitigation will be inadequate to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts
from occurring.
Persons not entitled to object may submit comments suggesting changes in the December 2006
Update to the City during the 10-working day comment period following notice of publication of
the December 2006 Update in the EQB Monitor This comment period ends on December 18,2006.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 1
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction.:
On May 16, 2006, the Hopkins City Council approved the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review
And Updated Mitigation Plan For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development (May Updated AUAR).
The May Updated AUAR studied a project that included 685,000 square feet (SF) of office space and
6,000 SF of retail space for a total development encompassing 691,000 SF. Since that approval, strong
demand for office space in Excelsior Crossings has caused the developer, Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
(Opus), to propose to the City of Hopkins (City) that an additional 55,000 SF of office space be added to
Excelsior Crossings. This represents an eight percent increase in office space from the 685,000 SF
studied in the May Updated AUAR. This December 2006 Update To The Updated Alternative Urban
Areawide Review And Updated Mitigation Plan For The Excelsior Crossings Office Development
(December 2006 Update) considers the potential environmental impacts of adding 55,000 SF to Excelsior
Crossings. Opus does not propose any other significant changes to Excelsior Crossings (Project) or its
31-acre site.
Background:
This December 2006 Update to the May Updated AUAR is the third environmental review undertaken on
this site. In addition to the May Updated AUAR completed and approved earlier this year, most of this
site was the subject of the Medica Corporate Office Development Alterative Areawide Review approved
by the City on August 21, 2001 (Medica AUAR). The Medica AUAR, the May Updated AUAR, and the
resolutions approving both are on file at the City.
December 2006 Update to the AUAR:
This December 2006 Update will only study changes in potential environmental impacts, alternatives, and
mitigative measures, stemming from the additional 55,000 SF of office space proposed by Opus. Hence,
the December 2006 Update is a supplement to the May Updated AUAR in which each of the 31 AUAR
questions was answered in detail.
The preparation of this December 2006 Update has been completed according to guidance prepared by
the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and is based on the directive of Minnesota Rules 4410.3610,
subp. 4. The responses in this December 2006 Update are numbered based on the items listed in the
standard Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) form. When an EA W item is not applicable to an
AUAR, it is so stated. All figures are located together in the Appendix that follows the Updated AUAR
text. The AUAR questions have also been updated to be consistent with the current EQB list of questions
for an AUAR dated April 2005.
1. Title. An appropriate descriptive title for the geographical area of the A UAR should be chosen.
A December 2006 Update to the May Updated AUAR published April 6, 2006, and approved May
16,2006.
Project title
Excelsior Crossings Office Development (Project)
Hopkins, Minnesota
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 2
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Proposer
Contact person
Title
Address
City, state, ZIP
Phone
Fax
E-mail
3. RGU
Contact person
Title
Address
City, state, ZIP
Phone
Fax
E-mail
Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
David J. Menke
Vice President-Real Estate Development
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, MN 55343
952-656-4565
952-656-4529
dave.menke@opuscorp.com
,-:
City of Hopkins
Nancy S. Anderson, AICP
City Planner
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343-9475
952-935-8474
952-935-1834
nanderson@hopkinsmn.com
4. Reason for EA W preparation. This December 2006 Update was prepared because Minnesota Rules
4410.3600, subp. 7C., requires updating an AUAR when "total development within the area would
exceed the maximum levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. "
5. Project location County Hennepin
Part of Northwest ~ Southwest %
City/Township Hopkins
Section ~ Township 117
Range 21
Attach each of the following to the A UAR:
. USGS Map; (Figure 1)
. City of Hopkins map; (Figure 2)
. ALTA Survey. (Figure 3)
. Preliminary Master Site Plan (Figure 4)
The Project location for the December 2006 Update study area lie in the east/northeast portion of
the City, in the northeast quadrant ofTH 169 and Excelsior Boulevard or County State Aid
Highway 3 as shown in Figures 1 and 2 (Project Site). Figure 3 is an AL T A Land Title Survey of
the Project Site. The 31-acre Project Site is comprised of two parcels - a 28-acre tract located
between Excelsior Boulevard and Second Street NE (Main Parcel), and a 3-acre tract located
north of Second Street NE (Chimney Parcel), which is shown in Figure 4.
The Project Site has not changed from the one studied in the May Updated AUAR.
6. Description. Instead of the information called for on the form, the description section of an A UAR
should include the following elements for each major development scenario included:
anticipated types and intensity (density) ofresidential and commercial/warehouse/light
industrial development throughout the A UAR area:
infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.)
Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an A UAR area are
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 3
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
normally expected to be reviewed as part of an A UAR More "arterial" types of roadways
that would cross an A UAR area are an optional inclusion in the A UAR analysis: if they are
included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative
routes is necessary.
Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known and
of the infrastructure and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development
schedule.
Important Note: Every A UAR document MUST review. one or more development scenarios based on
and consistent with the RGU's Comprehensive Plan in effect when the A UAR is officially ordered
(This is equivalent to reviewing the "no-build" alternative in an EIS.) If an RGU expects to amend
its existing Comprehensive Plan, it has the options of deferring the start of the A UAR until after
adopting the amended plan or reviewing developments based on both the existing and amended
comprehensive plans; however, it cannot review only a development based on an expected
amendment of the existing plan. Also, the rules require that one or more development scenarios
analyzed must be consistent with known development plans of property owners within the A UAR
area.
The RGU must assure that the development described complies with the requirements of 4410.3610,
subpart 3 (and also that it properly orders the AUAR and sets the description in that order as
required by 4410.3610, subpart 3).
Provide a project summary of 5 0 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
Excelsior Crossings Office Development has an approved May Updated AUAR for 685,000 SF of
office space and 6,000 SF of retail space. The developer proposes to change the project by adding
approximately 55,000 more office square footage, an increase of eight percent in office space
compared to the May Updated AUAR approved earlier this year. The project totals for the December
2006 Update to the May Updated AUAR are 740,000 SF of office and 6,000 SF of retail.
a. Proposed Excelsior Crossings Office Development
Opus intends to construct approximately 746,000 SF of development on the 28-acre Main Parcel,
including three office buildings totaling approximately 740,000 SF and one, free-standing retail
building at 6,000 SF. Project uses may include a hotel and medical manufacturing and research
and development uses. The 3-acre Chimney Parcel north of Second Street NE will be used for a
regional stormwater basin and open space, as well as continued snow placement by the City
during the winter months.
The Preliminary Master Plan (Figure 4) shows the pffice buildings grouped around a central
plaza and water feature, which also doubles as a stormwater basin. The buildings will be up to
seven stories in height and will be designed to create a general office campus. The single-story
retail building stands just north of the Project's main entrance from J ackson Avenue, north of
Excelsior Boulevard. The plan will incorporate landscape features and an integrated trail system
to promote a strong, convenient connector to the regional trails. Significant open space
comprised of landscape features and plantings are planned to create a development meeting the
development goals and requirements of Opus, the City, and other regulating agencies.
The Project will have approximately 3,064 parking stalls, for a parking ratio of 4.1 stalls per
1,000 SF. This is 64 more spaces than proposed in the May Updated AUAR. The parking spaces
will be provided in garages below the buildings, in surface parking areas, and in the parking
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 4
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ramps around the perimeter of the three buildings. The ramps may have up to three structural
levels. See Figure 4. This is one more level than proposed in the May Updated AUAR.
Opus proposes to locate the main entrance at the southeast corner of the Project Site, where it will
form the fourth leg of the Jackson Avenue and St. Louis Street intersection. This entrance
matches the May Updated AUAR and the plan in the Medica AUAR. The secondary access is on
Second Street NE, about half way between Monroe Avenue and the TH 169 overpass, and will
allow ingress and egress to both the east and west along Second Street NE. The alley serving the
four buildings currently located along Jackson Avenue will continue to connect to Second Street
NE on the north and to Jackson Avenue on the east. At Jackson Avenue, the alley will also
provide access to a parking lot for the Project and for the 6,000 SF retail. See Figure 4. The
secondary and alley access points are the same as in the May Updated AUAR.
The Excelsior Boulevard and Jackson Street roadway improvements detailed in the Medica
AUAR have been constructed by the City and Hennepin County. There are no major offsite
roadway improvements under consideration or determined to be necessary for the Project to
proceed. Please see the response to Question 21 and Attachment A - December 2006 Update to
the May 2006 Updated A UAR Traffic Impact Study for more detailed information on the expected
traffic impacts of the Project.
The City has previously identified the Project Site's Main Parcel for redevelopment to an office
or office/showroom-type use. In 2000, the City rezoned the property to the Business Park (BP)
classification from a General Industrial (1-2) category. The City also initiated a Comprehensive
Plan change for the property from Industrial to Business Park. This Comprehensive Plan change
was approved by the Metropolitan Council in 2001. In June of 2006, the project area was
rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The redevelopment of the 28-acre Main Parcel from a warehouse and distribution land use to an
office campus is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City, the current zoning
designation, and the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Utilization of the 3-acre Chimney
Parcel north of Second Street NE as a regional stormwater pond and open space amenity will
enable the Project to meet the water quality and rate control requirements of the City and
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Watershed District) and the City's open space
requirement. A regional pond may also alleviate some of the current flooding in the Project's
immediate vicinity.
b. Infrastructure Planned To Service The Development
No change to the May Updated AUAR.
c. Development Schedule And Phasing
Preparation of a complete PUD site plan application and this December 2006 Update are under
review at this time by the City. Approval of the site plan development package is planned for
January 2007, after approval of this December 2006 Update. Approval of the PUD site
development package by the City will require concurrence by the Watershed District, Hennepin
County, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the latter having plat review
authority only.
All City approvals will be conducted through the public approval process, which will allow
adjacent property owners to learn about and participate in discussions regarding the Project as the
design is refmed during the winter of 2006/2007.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 5
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Demolition of the structures on the Project Site began in November of 2006. Grading of the
Project Site will begin subsequent to the completion of the building demolition. It is anticipated
two office buildings will be included in the fIrst phase of construction. The third office building
will be phased based on market-driven tenant agreements. The grading, surface parking,
associated storm sewer design, and utility services may be phased to occur in conjunction with
the requirements of each building. However, the stormwater ponds and connecting pipes, as well
as the main entrance road, secondary access road and central roadway loop serving buildings B
and C, will be constructed with the first phase of development.
7. Project magnitude data. The cumulative totals of the parameters called for should be given for each
major development scenario, except that information on "manufacturing, " other industrial, "
"institutional, " and "agricultural". The A UAR has no changes from the EA W form, except that the
information should be given for each major development scenario.
Total project acreage: 31.0 Acres :!:
Number of residential units: unattached N/ A attached N/ A maximum units per building N/ A
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (grossfloor space): total square feet 746.000 SF
a. Proiect Changes from May Updated AUAR to the December 2006 Update:
· Office space will increase by 55,000 SF. The office square footage is 740,000 versus
685,000.
· The impervious coverage will be reduced 2%, from 75% to 73%, for the 31-acre site.
· There will be 64 more parking spaces - 3,064 versus 3,000, an increase of two percent.
. The parking ramps will have two levels above ground rather than one level above ground.
b. Maior Changes In The Immediate Vicinity
No change to the May Updated AUAR.
Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet):
Office 740.000 SF
Retail 6.000 SF
Warehouse NA
Light industria( NA
Other commercial (specify)
Manufacturing NA
Other industrial NA
Institutional NA
Agricultural NA
A hotel and medical manufacturing and research and development uses
may be built depending on market demand but the expected square
footage cannot be accurately estimated at this time.
Building height Office building at up to seven stories; retail building at one story; parking ramps at
up to three levels above grade.
If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings.
No change to the May Updated AUAR.
8. Permits and approvals required. A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan
amendments and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be
required by the anticipated types of cJ,evelopment projects should be given for each major
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 6
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
development scenario. This list will help orient reviewers to framework that will protect
environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the
implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the A UAR.
No change to the May Updated AUAR.
9. Land use. No changes from the EA W form. Describe current and recent past land use and
development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and
nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify
any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned
storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines.
No change to the May Updated AUAR.
10. Cover types. In A UAR the following information should be provided instead:
a. cover type map. at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting:
- wetlands - identified by type (Circular 39)
- watercourses - rivers, streams, creeks, ditches
- lakes - identify protected waters status and shore land management classification
- woodlands - breakdown by classes where possible
- grassland - identify native and oldfield
- cropland
- current development
b. an "overlay" map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types; this map
should also depict any "protection areas, " existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive
cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should generally be provided.
Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:
Cover Type Medica AUAR May December 2006
Updated AUAR Update
Before After Before After Before After
Type 1-8 wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wooded/forest 0 0 2.15 0.65 2.15 0.65
Brush! grassland 0 0 0.85 0.60 .85 0.60
Cropland 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lawn/landscaping 1.0 8.8 1.10 4.00 1.10 4.62
Impervious surfaces 27.6 18.7 26.90 23.25 26.90 22.63
Other (stormwater 0 1.1 0 2.50 0 2.50
ponds)
Total 28.6 28.6 31.00 31.00 31.00 31.00
If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: Not applicable.
The Project Site, including both the Main Parcel and the Chimney Parcel, is currently 86.8%
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 7
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
impervious. There has been no change from the May Updated AUAR in the existing impervious
conditions, except that the roadway dedication and construction as part of the Excelsior Boulevard
and Jackson Street improvements has been completed. The entire Main Parcel has been altered from
its natural state and has been an industrial use for the past 50+ years. The existing level of
development on the Main Parcel has eliminated any natural or sensitive cover types. Opportunities to
restore green areas using cover types of grasses, landscaping, and ponds will be identified on the
plans. The proposed plan, which increases landscaped areas slightly, will result in approximately
73% of the Project Site being impervious compared to 75% in the May Updated AUAR and the 70%
impervious in the Medica AUAR. No protection areas for sensitive cover types exist, except for the
regional trail on the west and south sides of the Project Site.
The Chimney Parcel is pervious except for the bituminous trail along the west boundary. The parcel
has been altered from natural conditions by filling, which presumably occurred to place a rail line
through the property. Prior to or concurrent with the placement offill, the existing ditch was
excavated which conveys water through the Chimney Parcel to the north. The unpaved portion of the
Chimney Parcel used for snow storage does not have significant vegetation other than weeds.
An Application for Exemption for Constructed Ditch to remove a portion of the constructed ditch
within the Chimney Parcel for the regional pond construction has been submitted to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Watershed District and approved by both agencies. The ditch has been
identified as an Incidental Wetland by the Watershed District, and as such will be exempt under the
Wetland Conservation Act.
The demolition permit has been received and the Project Site is permitted for the ongoing building
demolition.
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources.
a. The description of wildlife and fish resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on
the cover types maps (of item 10). Any differences in impacts between development scenarios
should be highlighted in the discussion.
No change from the May Updated AUAR published April 6, 2006, and approved May 6, 2006.
b. For an A UAR, prior consultation with the DNR Natural Heritage program for information about
reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required If such consultation indicates
the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the A UAR area
is required Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any Hprotection
zones" established as a result.
Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
12. Physical impacts on water resources. The information calledfor on the EAW form should be
supplied for in any of the infrastructure associated with the A UAR development scenarios, and for
any development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether
water resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the A UAR
should cover the possible impacts through a Hworst case scenario" or else prevent impacts through
the provisions of the mitigation plan.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 8
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
13. Water use. If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that
appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels
would be affected, any impacts on other resources should be addressed
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
14. Water-related Land Use Management Districts. Such districts should be delineated on appropriate
maps and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described If any variances
or deviations from these restrictions within the A UAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
15. Water surface use. This item need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin
recreational water bodies.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to
be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for
development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In
discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any
special measures that would be added for A UAR purposes should be included
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
17. Water quality: sutface water runoff. For an AUAR, the following additional guidance ~hould be
followed in addition to that in "EA W Guidelines. "
it is expected that an A UAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues;
a map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will
receive stormwater should be provided;
the description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and "regional" detention
ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted
existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed,
the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed
ifpresent in or adjoining the AUAR area, thefollowing types of water bodies must be given
special analyses;
lakes: within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared
for any upriority lake" identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro
area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation
with the AfPCA and DNR staffs;
trout streams: if stormwater discharge will enter or affect a trout stream, an
evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the
stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of
concern) must be included .
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 9
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent
controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans.
(1 ) Existing Conditions
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
(2) Proposed Stormwater Management System in the Original AUAR
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
(3) Proposed Conditions
On the Main Parcel, the Project consists of a number of proposed buildings, structured
parking facilities, paved surface parking lots, driveways, sidewalks and trails, and ponds;
these hard surfaces cover approximately 22.63 acres, which means 83% of the main parcel
will be impervious after construction. Approximately 5.3 7 acres, or 19%, of the Main
Parcel will be pervious, with both turfed and landscaped areas. On the Chimney Parcel, the
pond will cover 0.9 acres, or 30% of the parcel. Therefore, of the total 31-acre Project Site,
when turf and stormwater ponds and remaining open space are calculated, 73 % of the
Project Site will be impervious area. This complies with the City Zoning Code.
As part of the Project, a system of four ponds and piping will be designed and constructed
to meet Watershed District requirements and NURP standards. Stormwater runoffwill be
routed through the Main Parcel, receiving a portion of the required treatment and detention
within the four ponds. After cycling through the ponding system on the Main Parcel,
stormwater runoff will be piped beneath Second Street NE into a regional pond that is to be
constructed over a portion of the existing ditch on the Chimney Parcel.
A conceptual storm sewer and pond system layout is illustrated on Figure 5, Proposed
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan. It shows the following main features:
. Pond 1, an isolated basin at the northwest corner of the Main Parcel, will be
constructed to treat and detain the runoff from the surface of the northwest ramp.
Pond 1 will discharge via a pipe beneath Second Street NE into the proposed
regional pond. Some infiltration is expected.
. Pond 2 will be located at the northeast comer of the Main Parcel. Pond 2 will
detain the discharge from Pond 3 and the surface of the northeast parking structure
prior to discharging it into the proposed regional pond via a storm sewer. Some
infiltration is expected.
. Pond 3 will be located along Excelsior Boulevard and will detain runoff from the
paved surfaces of the Project Site and surface runoff from the southwest ramp.
Pond 3 will drain within 24 hours into Pond 2 via piping for storm events up to and
including the 100-year storm event. Some infiltration is expected.
. Pond 4, a central water feature, will treat and provide detention for the rooftop
runoff from the office buildings. Treate,d roof runoff from Pond 4 will routed to
Pond 3 via piping. This pond will be lined, and infiltration is not expected.
The proposed regional pond will provide the remaining required treatment and detention for
the Project that is not provided already in the four ponds on the Main Parcel. As required
by the City, the maximum allowable discharge from the ponds during a 100-year, 24-hour
storm event is 0.5 cfs per acre, or 14 cfs for the Main Parcel. Based on the proposed Site
plan and drainage design, discharge outlet flows from the proposed regional pond for the
100-year storm event will meet the 14 cfs allowable maximum discharge rate requirement.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 10
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The regional pond has been designed to address water quality for runoff from the four
properties adjacent to Jackson Street while still meeting the 0.5 cfs per acre rate control
limit. However, because runoff from these lots flows directly into the public streets, there
may still be some localized flooding until the four sites are developed.
When these lots are redeveloped, drainage can be piped to the regional pond without
expanding the pond.
Based on the preliminary design, the regional pond also provides approximately 2.8 acre-
feet of additional treatment and detention capacity for off-site properties. A stormwater
model was developed for the proposed conditions utilizing the HydroCAD program.
Results of the proposed conditions model are included in the Preliminary Drainage Report.
(4) Compliance With MPCA. City. And Watershed Requirements
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
(5) Advantages Of Proposed System Over Existing Conditions And Original AUAR.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from. the site; include major downstream
water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact of runoff on the quality
of receiving waters.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
18. Water quality: wastewaters. Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR:
only domestic wastewater should be considered in an A UAR---industrial wastewater would
be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an A UAR process;
wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the A UAR area; the basis of
the flow estimates should be explained;
the major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows should be
identified;
if not explained under item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction should be
described;
the relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU's comprehensive sewer plan an
(jor metro area A UARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including MUSA
explanations, should be discussed For non-metro area A UARs, the A UAR must discuss the
capacity of the RGU's wastewater treatment system compared to the flows from the A UAR
area; any necessary improvements should be described;
if on-site systems will serve part of the A UAR, the guidance in "EA W Guidelines" (pages 16-
17) should be followed
a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial
wastewater produced or treated at the site.
There is no change to the May Updated AUAR, except for a minimal increase in the proposed
wastewater flows, as noted below. The public sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment facilities
are adequate to handle the projected flows.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 11
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wastewater generated by the Project is expected to be entirely domestic sewage. The site is
estimated to add 6,252 gallons per day over the flow projected in the May Updated AUAR. The
estimated maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume from the site is 85,214 gallons. This
estimate is based on the methods outlined in the Service Availability Charge (SAC) Procedures
Manual (Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, 1996). One SAC unit equals 274 gallons
of maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume. Wastewater volume was estimated based
on the following SAC criteria:
TOTAL PROJECT:
Office Buildings and Retail
746,000 SF -7- 2,400 SF per SAC = 311 SAC
TOTAL PROJECT DAILY WASTEWATER DEMAND:
311 SAC x 274 Gallons per SAC = 85..214 Gallons per Dav
The Medica AUAR projected a total daily wastewater demand of 68,500 Gallons per Day.
The May Updated AUAR projected a total daily wastewater demand of 78,900 gallons.
Wastewater flows from the existing warehouse facility no longer discharging into the public
sanitary sewer system were as follows:
Warehouse 421,700 SF / 7,000 SF per SAC =
East Buildings 31,000 SF / 7,000 SF per SAC =
TOTAL ESTIMATED PAST DAILY DEMAND
60 SAC
3 SAC
63 SAC
NET ADDITIONAL DAILY WASTEWATER DEMAND:
311 SAC - 63 SAC = 248 SAC x 274 Gallons per SAC = 67,952 Gallons per Day
b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of
composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies,
and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-
site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe
any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and
composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
d If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location
and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any
improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards
identified A standard soils map for the area should be included
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 12
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 17 minimum,
to bedrock: Not encountered minimum
20 average,
Not encountered average
Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the
site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to
avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
No change from the May Updated AUAR. .
b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil
granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or
spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks. For "a", generally only the estimated total quantity
of municipal solid waste generated and information about recycling or source separation programs
of the RGU need to be included. No response is necessary for "b". For uc", potential locations of
storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the A UAR should be identified (e.g. gasoline tanks
at service stations).
There is no change from the Updated AUAR, except for an incremental increase in the amount of
municipal solid waste and recycling based on the increase in the proposed office square footage.
a. Describe types, amount and compositions of solid or hazardous waste.
(1) Construction Wastes
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
(2) Operational Wastes
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures
to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous
materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives
considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store
petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response
containment plans.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
21. Traffic. For most AUAR reviews a relatively detailed traffic analysis will be needed, especially if
there is to be much commercial development in the A UAR area or if there are major congested
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 13
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
roadways in the vicinity. The results of the - traffic analysis must be used in the response to item 22
and to the noise aspect of item 24.
Instead of responding to the information calledfor in item 21, thefollowing information should be
provided:
a description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state,
regional, and local roads to be affected by the development of the A UAR area. This
information should include existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and
projected background (i.e., without the AUAR development) traffic volumes;
trip generation data -trip generation rates and trip totals-for teach major development
scenario broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The
projected distributions onto the roadway system must be included;
analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the A UAR area on the roadway system,
including: comparison of peak period total flows to capacities and analysis of Levels of
Service and delay times at critical points (if any);
. a discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management
measures that are proposed to mitigate problems;
Note: in the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be
generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and
projections should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to
identifying congestion problems, as well as ADTs.
Parking spaces added:
Existing Parking spaces per May Updated A UAR
Estimated total average daily traffic generated:
Estimated maximum peak hour traffic
generated (if known) and time of occurrence:
Approximately 64 spaces
Estimated to be 3,000.
8,396 trips
7:00-8:00 AM:, 1,153 trips
4:30-5:30 PM: 1,116 trips
Due to an increase in site-generated traffic, a December 2006 Updated AUAR Traffic Impact Study
to the updated May AUAR Traffic Impact Study was completed. See Attachment A in the appendix.
This updated study identifies changes in the roadway system around the project site, calculates
expected trip generation and distribution, sets forth the current and projected roadway levels of
service, and discusses mitigation measures for the Project.
a. Traffic Analysis
The May 2006 AUAR assumed 2006 and 2020 as design years. New trip generation estimates
were conducted to reflect the change in proposed land use. Tables 21-1 and 21-2 include the trip
generation estimates for the current December 2006 and previous May 2006 site plans,
respectively. Table 21-3 details the increase in site-generated trips.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 14
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 21-1
Current December, 2006 AUAR Trip Generation Estimates!'
Land Use ITE Size AM AM PM PM
Code Enter Exit Enter Exit
General Office 710 740,000 s.f. 1,009 138 187 915
Specialty Retail 814 6,000 s.f. 4 2 7 9
Less shared trips2. 0 0 -1 -1
Total New Trips 1,013 140 193 923
Assumed for Analysis 1,153 1,116
1. Data from Trip Generation. 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2. Per Trio Generation Handbook. 2nd Edition. published by ITE.
Weekday
Total
8,147
266
-17
8,396
Table 21-2
Previous Ma iT, 2006 AUAR Trip Generation Estimates!'
Land Use ITE Size AM AM PM PM
Code Enter Exit Enter Exit
General Office 710 680,000 s.f. 927 126 172 842
Specialty Retail 814 9,000 s.f. 6 4 11 14
Less shared trips2. 0 0 -1 -1
Total New Trips 933 130 182 855
Assumed for Analysis 1,063 1,037
1. As documented in the April 2006 Traffic Impact Study prepared by RLK.
Weekda
y Total
7,487
399
-20
7,865
Table 21-3.
Trip Generation Estimate Increase from Previous May, 2006 to Current Dec., 2006 AUAR Sites
AM Enter I AM Exit PM Enter I PM Exit Weekday Total
+80 I +10 +11 I +68
+90 +79
+531
By comparison, the December, 2006 Update is anticipated to generate 8% more AM peak hour
trips, 8% more PM peak hour trips, and 7% more daily trips than the previously approved May
AUAR site. The actual proposed increase in square footage for the site is 8%.
Year 2020 conditions were reestablished by accounting for other development planned for the
Project area and by assuming an annual background traffic growth of 1.0%. The "other
development" planned for the area included projects already approved or considered likely to
proceed by the City. These other developments would add background traffic to area roadways.
Please refer to the December 2006 Updated AUAR Traffic Impact Study for the complete list of
these other developments assumed to contribute to background traffic growth.
Analysis comparing traffic impacts from the currently proposed land uses in the December, 2006
AUAR to the previously proposed land uses ine the May, 2006 AUAR for the "Excelsior
Crossings Office Development" site has been completed to determine if the increase in land use
density will create impacts beyond those determined in the May, 2006 AUAR. Results of the
analysis indicate that no further roadway mitigation beyond that suggested in the May, 2006
AUAR is necessary.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 15
December 1,2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b. Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures, as suggested in the previous May Updated AUAR are
proposed for the current December 2006 Update at the S1. Louis Street/Site Access and Jackson
Avenue intersection:
· Restriping of the southbound approach to extend the left turn storage bay length from 7 S
feet to 120 feet.
· Design of the onsite eastbound approach to include a lOS-foot right turn storage bay.
Based on Figure 11, this suggestion is already part of the Project design.
· Installation of a traffic signal when warranted.
· Adjustment of signage and striping on the northbound approach to create dual left turn
lanes and shared through/right turn lane. This measure should be completed concurrently
with installation of the traffic signal.
· Hennepin County should modify signal system timing to ensure safe operations
throughout the study area network.
22. Vehicle-related air emissions. The guidance provided in "EA W Guidelines" should also be followed
for an A UAR. Mitigation proposed to eliminate any potential problems may be presented under item
21 and merely referenced here.
Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide
levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts.
c. CO Analysis
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
23. Stationary source air emissions. This item is not applicable to an A UAR. Any stationary air
emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during
operation? !&I Yes ON 0
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures
to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate
impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust
generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
Dust, odors and noise. Dust, odors and construction noise need not be addressed in an A UAR,
unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the
mitigation plan, however, any dust control or construction noise ordinances in effect.
If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources a noise analysis is needed to determine if any
noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation
measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic
analysis of item 21.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 16
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
25. Sensitive resources.
Archeological. historic. and architectural resources. For an A UAR, contact with the State Historic
Preservation Office is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these
resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the
issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified
Prime or unique farmlands. The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the A UAR
should be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should be
discussed
Designated varks. recreation areas. or trails. If development of the A UAR will interfere or change the
use of any existing such resource, this should be described in the A UAR The RGU may also want to
discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in conjunction
with development of the A UAR area.
Scenic views and vistas. Any impacts on such resources present in the A UAR should be addressed
This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. "EA W
Guidelines: contains a list of possible scenic resources (page 20).
Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? D Yes ~ No
Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? D Yes ~ No
Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? ~ Yes D No
Scenic views and vistas? D Yes ~ No
Other unique resources? D Yes ~ No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any
measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
26. Adverse visual impacts. If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated
development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation.
Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from
intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or
exhaust stacks? Yes X No
If yes, explain.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
27. Compatibility with Plans. The A UAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its
comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at 4410.3610. subpart 1. The AUAR
document should discuss the proposed A UAR area development in context of the comprehensive plan.
If this has not bee done as part of the responses to items 6,9,18,21 and others, it must be addressed
here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail under
other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the
development scenarios should be noted If there are any management plans of any other local, state,
or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the
plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements.
Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 17
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal
agency? -X_Yes _No.
If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will
be resolved If no, explain.
In)une 2006, the City approved the PUD zoning district for the Project Site, rezoning it from the
previous B-P District. Otherwise, there is no change from the May Updated AUAR.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. This item should first of all summarize information on
physical infrastructure presented under other items (such as 6, 17, 18 and 21). Other major
infrastructure or public services not covered under the other items should be discussed as well -- this
includes major social services such as schools, police, fire, etc. The RGU must be careful to include
project-associated infrastructure as an explicit part of the A UAR review if it is to exempt from
project-specific review in the future.
Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the
project? X Yes _No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed
(Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the
EA W; see EA W Guidelines for details.)
a. Utility and Drainage Infrastructure
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
b. Roadway Infrastructure
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
c. Other Public Services
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
29. Cumulative impacts. This item does not require a response for an A UAR with respect to cumulative
impacts of potential developments within the A UAR boundaries, since the entire A UAR process is
intended to deal with cumulative impacts from related developments within the A UAR area; it is
presumed that the responses to all items on the EA W form encompass the impacts from all anticipated
developments within the A UAR area.
However, the questions of this item should be answered with respect to the cumulative impacts of
development within the A UAR boundaries combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects outside of the A UAR area, where such cumulative impacts may be potentially
significant. (As stated on the EA W form, these cumulative impact descriptions may be provided as
part of the responses to other appropriate EA W items, or in response to this item).
Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, Subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative
potential effects of related or anticipatedfuture projects" when determining the needfor an
environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects
that may interact with the project described in this EA W in such a way as to cause cumulative
impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects
due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 18
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
on thisform).
This Updated AUAR analyzed cumulative impacts under each question. This December 2006 Update
also identifies mitigation measures to address potential cumulative impacts under each question. Two
of the key areas of concern for cumulative impacts - stormwater management and traffic - illustrate
this cumulative impact analysis.
The Updated AUAR Traffic Impact Study and this December 2006 Update focus on the current
traffic volumes and a 20-year projection. Not only were current traffic counts completed at nearby
intersections, but the City requested that the traffic analysis account for known or anticipated
development in the vicinity of the Project. Items such as the redevelopment of Hopkins Honda at
Fifth and Main Streets and a dozen more redevelopment sites were reviewed as having been built.
The background traffic for the 2006 baseline analysis was adjusted and the anticipated developments
were added. The December 2006 Update Traffic Impact Study includes baseline counts, projected
redevelopment trips, and an annual growth factor in addition to the Project traffic. The results
identify the anticipated traffic volumes, and mitigation measures are recommended to manage the
forecast traffic level~. The addition of trips to coincide with the additional 55,000 of office have been
studied and the results indicate acceptance levels of service for the model intersections, which are
comparable to the May Updated AUAR.
The storm water response analysis shows the same cumulative analysis. Stormwater runoff flows
from both the Project Site and surrounding areas that flow to the Chimney Parcel are all considered in
the Preliminary Drainage Report and this December 2006 Update. The stormwater management
system design handles the runoff from the Main Parcel and provides additional storage in the regional
pond to detain and treat additional flow from outside the Project Site.
30. Other potential environmental impacts. If applicable, this item should be answered as requested by
the EA W form. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1
to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
31. Summary of issues. The RGU may answer this question as asked by the form, or instead may choose
to provide an Executive Summary to the document that basically covers the same information. Either
way, the major emphasis should be on: potentially significant impacts, the differences in impacts
between major development scenarios, and the proposed mitigation.
Do not complete this section if the EA W is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant
issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EA W List any impacts
and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun.
Discuss any alternatives or mitigation measures that have been or may be considered for these
impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions.
a. Proiect Site Contamination
No change from the May Updated AUAR.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 19
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b. Stormwater Management
Due to a slight decrease in impervious area on the Project Site, the storm water management
system will have slightly more excess capacity to address both runoff rate and water quality
treatment.
c. Traffic
The Project will generate an estimated 8,396 average daily trips. The December 2006 Updated
AUAR Traffic Impact Study and this Updated AUAR demonstrate that the current roadway
system can accommodate those trips at acceptable levels of service with the following mitigation
measures:
· Restriping of the southbound approach to the Project main entrance to extend the lef:t turn
storage bay length from 75 feet to 120 feet.
· Design of the onsite eastbound approach to the Project main entrance to include a 105-
foot right turn storage bay.
· Installation of a traffic signal at the Project main entrance when warranted.
· Adjustment of signage and striping on the northbound approach to the Project main
entrance to create dual left turn lanes and shared through/right turn lane. (This measure
should be completed concurrently with installation of the traffic signal.)
· It is suggested that Hennepin County monitor the signal to ensure optimal timing and
coordination within the network.
d. Increased Water and Sanitary Sewage Demands
Because the Project includes eight percent more office square footage, increased water and
sanitary sewer demands are anticipated. The public wastewater piping system has capacity for
the Project. The analysis has been done to identify any required improvements to the public
water system.
Certification by the RGU. In an A UAR document, no certifications as listed at the end of the EA W form
are necessary. (The RGU is legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the document and
for properly distributing it nonetheless).
Not required for AUAR.
Mitigation Plan. The final A UAR document must include an explicit mitigation plan. At the RGU's
option, a draft plan may be include in the draft A UAR document; of course, whether or not there is a
separate item for a draft mitigation plan, proposed mitigation must be addressed through the document.
It must be understood that the mitigation plan in the final document takes on the nature of a commitment
by the RGU to prevent potentially significant impacts from occurring from specific projects, It is more
than just a list of ways to reduce impacts-it must include information about how the mitigation will be
applied and assurance that it will. Otherwise, the A UAR may not be adequate and/or specific projects
may lose their exemption from the individual review. The RGU's final action on the A UAR must
specifically adopt the mitigation plan; therefore, the plan has a "political" as well as a technical
dimension.
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 20
December 1, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
No change to the Mitigation Plan to the Updated Alternative Areawide Review for the City of Hopkins
Regarding the Excelsior Crossings Office Development that was also adopted by the City on May 16,
2006.
Response to comments on the draft A UAR document The final A UAR document must include a section
specifically responding to each timely and substantive comment on the draft that indicates the way in
which the comment has been addressed Similar comments may be combinedfor purposes of responding.
Not applicable to an AUAR Update.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at
the Administration Department. For additional information, worksheets or for EA W Guidelines, contact:
Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, lvlN 55155,651-296-8253, or
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us
G:\EQB\ENREVIEW\AUARformat.doc
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review for
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, Minnesota Page 21
December 1,2006
I
I
I
.
I
.
.
.
'.
.
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
APPENDIX
FIGURES AND ATTACHMENT
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Excelsior Crossings Office Development - Hopkins, Minnesota
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 1
USGS MAP
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Excelsior Crossings Office Development - Hopkins, Minnesota
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~$t"I.I"'. .'. ".~~ -- - --
> ~r~~ --
~~Io' (fr ~C- - ~. .
~~~ ~ r-~ . ~--;;::-- _~~....- ~ -- - · - "-7 r- - -.
!I/\ ",,'- :" ~r.s; "':'i;': _- . ~~- ,.~:Ho~~ 00 -
v~- \ r ./.fo:"'} . . . .' i;'~ ~?~ - -- "" -:;. ~)'i~ "W:"8 'P ~ dr l :lIR{f'.....~ . =--- ~--
(<<lI' ,\ p-\' ,~'\.. . ,J' . p:.'<"r 'f ; '. . ~~ / ~;: ~ 'S~\td HI'" IIt.iJJI 1?1o~J0Jl!J I ~IH'^'iF'~!l':''--''
.. ~ 1 " ~ ~ no""". .' ,\; :'il. o<::-:\<"~ l =1':" . _ · ~l\ ~^ I 'r ~~ ..i. on 11;i,~ tJ ~ ro 'f )~(' ~tr
.,~. ~~. \ ~,tl~~~~ ~~::t.~~k,. .. '~. f0:,~~' f~-==fi?f~ '1~hh~;\~:.J~.~~~C:'It; l\q~
_ (~., I Jff\~ I ", ;0;.::..-.011'1' . _~... ., . "I' fur ng ~ 1 V!i .lvl illl ~ if
~i~bl/l ~~ ',_ ';'-1 ~:~' ~~~ ,"~," /o~ :1,; 'o",,~ r W, AQu<i' p;;;-~~ ~ II ,...:,/t7JfII'~
i" . '''' i0:;Cr'r' ~ , .7J' """ ~:;! ..t (;1' _. . '" ~~'" '--I,I;T ~ =." J l,:=!!l;;J
!I.:-t\ Ii: r~ 6. )A~O '" l~ir rE~ ~.., ~ j'i~ ~!"- ~ B . ; :' c ,W ~lJ '('), 0 I (I\, ,;;; Ie/I ~ .~ ~
~~,. r-Z .;1;P.~ f... \~ , o. ,~" _ ~ '" ~'~ ,<',; J ~ ,CJ ,,,. ~ lriJ ,/J. ,,,,,,,,,",,, ' -... ,115r. "".....' ~
,'" .,:. . . '~"'Y~ i \ .~.'f>.'v~ '" .V~.,. ~..." .J.. .- - . -. Jill. 0' >' -- 0" ,. -.... ':-'~~' I..!
," . _. . ..'l!li , ... /<<U ., ." ~." " - .. ".f" x..
~",,:,,/___' .\j~ .~.~ ::f.~... ~I")/~ ._l~')WII'ITv;I' """,' ~~_~e;l7.
l'i.~ ... '",.,~ \""", .. /1. ~~ .,.,.% ?....~l : ~,f/ ,. 8 /11\'1 I_\~ t:n~.h fl~ !~~ OO~ ~
.~,L: ['-' ....') J i" .'=--" , '" ~ It " I . "...L.~ I," "1>-z-"" ~:-;- ';.l; "
~~\~~irf~~ /~ ' 0"ib a ~.~ ~ .j.;:'"J) ,~~."(' ~"f' ,0', 0- 0 )f.... ..~ 1~-;"?'O;,.I!~1 o} J
'.11 L.: j.,t, ;%9~V .~'j' ::"-1 l! z..''{ ~n;, {,JJ=-~\ )f,t- ~~ r~~I~'~lJ .J1[j'-~rr-ll {
. . ">1.\; A:;:Ji i.' 0 ":' ~ lJ .........'-J ,'II ~ /" ,f :G-',fflc4@ n'~" II /"1"" ,."
~"1'rn ~.i~ : .~" (::~ oa~~RI~~-Fk~\ ~~ I",'~~~) }} ,,' K- j :'Jl':o~ \~ I,~O_' ,Iii m~$r~ r~~. ~ -'
11Jl.,,,,a;j ~ -' ,_"o.!l"'r.G .J..~~' . ! _.lI.,.,r.,' ' ' ". e '0 ,:~ 'I; .'
:0:1~!4~ . ~ ~1;"l!J\ bJ L ~H;~h _~ ~2 ~ r> '11 VI , ;171- ~" i"'CShop '<' :" < ,(!. ~ 'Ci' .' ,11,1' ij): ~
II .'~ .", \I.C ~'{Y ~ Fl ' - I ", ~~ ,nl " 7' v , . S h " I/'~
~Jk!~~" =!!OJ~~~ :~~~g~~J} ~t:;~~i~"(~!Jf~~~ ,~~~I~~
~ . SflI~..eA::"-:JA-~ ~ ~~ U ~. ,..-/ r7.;~I~I~~.,~'-=-~-n ........, ~. ,ldtlG;;.os-.lS;-f;'~
II~I~':' . ,[J6:'II, IIUII;t.l~ JIi" ::I::rJ;~1 ~ p;~~" J 4~~ ;g@jl~ ','1\ ~\~~\ ~~~ ;., "~~ ~1(~A
v' ,,' ,. r II~ __ 1,J , 1< 't'1 w,.-'''- ,- ., '~'I, ::>Pail< 1.,uA --"'. . n"'~ ~~~ A'
r ~ . 0 ci " ,nlHl~ ,,:" 11,'.,~ I'" ~ ,]1;\1: ~"! '. ~: ,~_:lft" '":: 0 ~-"7 ,I . <>-, .v"". .X' 0 Y J
N.IF~rl.~:oo'i j/~~8r~~o}ln:s'IJ1:1 ",J.1fIt-Q~~~ :~]I~ ~~
~~~~~J~Ir'1i' 1I~.II~l! ~#~,.~l,}rs~~II" ~~ 3y<'~~~~~~
(;JbC,J'::lfJlF;]lffTIr-/[q1"" "U HI, t 1':& I,Milf,.1 ,'""1. ~JI .' ~I ",-"","!",~,-"""",",.~ ~ m"~lJ20".- ~
~~o.. ~'..j .tjJ:l-.I~~i..:I:7J'U='~h ~"~liJ;f:I\"~i.~n;.;M..l .~A~.:~i~ 1~loo,~ :'~~J.'j.*",.~I~
C;lr~'J .~~~ri1ri1 ~ln.u: ! ~....V'1 ^c ~,i&'-.....~~"/IN:'.'fif~I~' C-~'~r ~! il!','; ~tJ~lliwJ
~~ l ,',au LJl5~. 'f~Q1J.lf ~ ~ .~~ '~.";.,. ,1I11 jL.l" ..,.......~II.,. ~I'...uW1'
~~ = II~h ~ rr:nl~li,r3iJ'. II ~ _ ,(~tj. ~~; J ';rii~ V "~"..C5'~~) trlt '"! ';CVfV b;,i-iL.
)1:"" ." '..~L:jJll.!liJJiI-=~'~''-'~'''''' 7~'~'1I:~~IJ~U L'lr\. ;\), II- ,;;~, b"r. iM.(t
'--l~ '-" : ~, rl :"1 w _ r ~~-_ i ~ .i!lfnlt,~JI .... I'~\\~rn \'{:-hk' v;' ... -I~~ ~I. ..' ~f ~1./ ~Il f~--'"
." :m .' I _:;.~i ." Tel' \__ ..~. _~~~~~-. .~/,~ .l .:;' W Ij~,j 1Hl::1 ~~" .J~l~.( ~;d · el i-::1..>. ~:I' ~!r.ll~~. /;",/
_ :\ ~~ ~.__. :;?"'/Ifr I . BMrr:;~d'A~lr. . II!IS' "oJiI 'ir."?' ~ ." '" ,.. -" I
,!' ~.' 0.--"'" "'j" ~"'" . \ . 'g!J.P" uo, "~-' ~ ik ': . c ~~"" I~'l ,:;!fllC1T. :j ~~~:. ~ ~I ~4h .,~.~~Itt ~
~.~ ~!. ~,A .' I~ ". . Lf \ ,~'t -r.trfll'W':;:-"~~~:~: 7;; ~~11~1{~;~~.~.(~
;if" ~~ ,.'" (, f1:i::':~r.1 =5TH " ~ G ll'i1.:; P rl I 1I~ M ;-If~II5f1: ~........~ Ii' (r
~f," ;'~~i~~[1g?'~II;Jt~~.~ ,of~~:~~,d;_~i~~<0~)r'PtJJ_~' .'0 ~O~~I(
,<~.6 ,;~l:."'tIJI!~,I, ,ll'.~V J-l ~.:i!;I~I;: ~ (. .~~:i~/;o~~~~~~~I. ,.... )d~K';' ",':1I'-;i~~j. \ ..0'--:,- -'/~-) I.~,
_ "' ,...v u='~ 1---1 I; : . ',it\' ..., I ~,!!!!-f?, ~.' '\ i "~~' e' lffi)' ...'l~ ' i? ~~. -~ - n' ~
I ,...~y (\ "Y'-J) ~u~ ~ ~~. "I ;,i.1tli \;>" .0 ..",.(/ :.(r:>-~ "'~ ,,~ ..,.. ~-"': ~ :c!!,i~;IaCh>f(' ~/ ...
! I' IJ. /.~ --'~". tl1:wllll': ,.t . .n....... _.... . ~~~...~~ .,._.;tJ,.'.,:7-.J . ii\'.. ,,~~ VI..-.:-=::: ~~.~~.f;..u..n~f"C.jUb \
, I ~,':Ji~.!2,lJ1<>- ':1;.:: p _ :,,/'J\{~~ Q"J(.<~\ ~~,. ~L~'-' i '-'~;' . !
~/~. c. / " . ,,.ij'el .1 ' "" !.J ~"wr . ==~J;~';'.""'~""""~;' - I '1'1 I ' "
'A '" .=!D: ,~ ;1.0- ,f. .0# ,0)"'.''''.< ,0 . " '.' ~ 0 -> ~'k ',t.. ., ~ ·
~; ~'.. .~1)i~.~ 6U=~- O-~<~~......, ....(...1 "'~ .~,(,.L.._. .!:~Al-..,.,,~C1'. ~~. ~ml ~)..~~"~~"~-! .~#~~~~t: :
, ,_<'C), F='o. ,."'~ " ~~S/ ,. -' ' · I . ('~. J~. ~ . '- - !" .' I . ,0 I \ -
(', ~J \~ ~ "\,...", ,?,~_~'O ' " ~'.." Ii ,'.. ~,Ii.,/, ;' .;:-0.~ 1
N ,__ ~j /0' '. . of. ._.. .0" ' t , --', ",.'
;: ~~I-'.it""':- . .: ~~.:...~~: '~'.' \<':~!~"';'f'.'> s~~~ d~.z.....\??~..M
j :',b~ @~ '\ ',. -...:- '"" 0 ,.", 'c. .,., ~ . 'C), . ~
f;;, '''_~ _.L.- i ....' ~ .,' _,_ ~ · .\.; .'~. .,' ::i ~; ~\S'o .'-. rfj
\. <:_',) /_ ~\~ __~_~.,-_ .", ". " : .11, ,r,i/-'~ ''d'' 0 0 ~ . 0
~:-v;~ . ~~.'_.'..'~. "'~' 1;'1!"i;~.-.. ': \'- " .. :J ) . "C, .J~...~E
. '. ~ ,_ .;_ _,..=_ l! . ""J. ''''''-'');'' , ,., " J \ ="J " I .N
" , "'!.::.i 'l~.~--- -~~I- J1 ~11!~}...,a,':"9;;J/ ~~II~~~':. .., NORTH
_ _~ ~ /;\., e> 1" --t- ':,1:: . 0 i3' 1 ~'!I Y
. ' .'.:l l. \ o. ,.. 11 ~
OPUS OFFICE DEVE
HOPKINS MNLOPMENT
USGS MAP
I @ 2006 RLK INC.
I
I
I
II
I
(f)
t:>
(f)
I;
w
/'
a:::
It
N
/'
0'
;:
Ii
o
I
(!J
I~
-l
FIG. 1
2006032M
3/15/06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 2
CITY OF HOPKINS MAP
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Excelsior Crossings Office Development - Hopkins, Minnesota
6 R\.K ,"C.
-<
~
~
Z
~
~
p
S
~
~
ST. LOL1lS p.A.RK
\
~
t -<
~*./..
7'""" - ~
<{-- .. 1
q <",/ ~
o /" '
? i~7~ \
RZZ~ \
Z;l!i\2.5 <
.~
"-
"'"
-<
~
~
~
~
~
}u.N'NETONK.A
Duluth, MN
Ham Lake, MN
J..bbbillg, MN
Minnetonki>, MN
Phone: 9529330972
Far.: 952933 1153
.....ww.(lkillc-com
EXCELS\OR CROSS\NGS
HOPK\NS. MN
erN Of HoPK\NS MAP
F\ G. 2
2006032\&
4/6/06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 3
ALTA LAND TITLE SURVEY
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Excelsior Crossings Office Development - Hopkins, Minnesota
I, the undersigned roglstered land surveyor, hereby certify to Of)us
Northwest, L.L C. a Delaware limited liability company, and Commercial
Partners Tille, LLC, thot, as of the date hereon, this mop 01 .urvey
occurately and truly represen" the resull, 0' 0 field .urvey mad.
under my dlre~t1on ond mode In accordance with th. "MinImum
Standard Detail Requirements for AL TA/ACSM Land Title Surveys" Jolnlly
established and adopted by the Amerloon Land TIlle Assoclotoon, the
Notional SocIety of Professional Surveyor. Qnd 'he American Congress
on SurvlYlng ond Mopping In 2005 ond Includes Items " 2, J, 4, !, 6,
7(0). 8. 9, 10, lI(b), 13 and 14 of Table A, that this mop of survey
meets tne accuracy requirements as defined therC!Iln, and that the .aid
mop of survey correctly or'ld accurately ahowl ond depict. (0) th.
boundary and location of the perimeter of the property by coursu and
distances, (b) 011 easements affecting the property a. relerenced In the
t.Ue commitment supplied, whether ben.flUng or b1,lrdenln9 some, ond
rI9hts-of-way and ex"tlng utility lines whether recorded oa referenced
In the title cammltmenl supplied, or dllclo..d by Q vlloble physical
InspectlQn of the property, (c) the boundarl.. of all public and prlvote
etreets abultlnv the property and the width. thereof, (d)
encroachments onto the property and any and all eot.menls
oppertolrung th.,reto ond the extent thereof I" feet ond Inches of'td 011
encroachments by qny buildings, structures or Improvement, locoted on
the property onto ony las,menta and ont~ property adjacent 1hereto,
(e) 011 buildings. structures ond ImprovementJ ond other physlcol
motters by dlstonce. to the perimeter of th. property, (t) that there
exist. meana of Ingr'I' and ogrell to and from the property ond (9)
the loco lion of the boundarl.. o( any tOO-year flood hazord boundary
level at defined by the curr,nt F'ed.rol Emergency Mal"lQC)ement Agency
mop of the area
Doted thll 17th day of January, 2006
SUNDE LAND SURVEYINC, LLC,
By --______________________________________1
Scott J, Soukup, R,L.$, Mlnn, Rev No, 17256
NO. 3
\
AREAS'
TRACT A ~ 132,167 Sq n or 3,034 Acres
TRACT 8 - 975,287 Sq F't or 22390 Acree (does not Include Detail ()reo)
DET AIL ~ 828 SQ n
TRACT C - 214.996 Sq n '" 4.938 Acres
TOTAL AREA ~ 1.323.27e Sq. rt or JO.378 Aern
-
-
-
-
IN
I
I
I
~ .....-.... ~ - ....,
,---------
I ;
I
I
I
I
/
I
/
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1
(Per CO/TImerclal Portner, Title, LLC as agent for Lawyer. Title Insurane, Corporotlon Commitment for Title Inauronce
rde No 25B?1 Second Supplement, doled August 31, 2005)
Tract A,
Lot 1, ehock 1. VAlU ADDITION. according to the recorded plot thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota
Torrens Property
Torrens CerlUlcote No 801994
Troct B
Parcel 1:
Tract. A, Band C, Registered Land Survey No 1465, Hennepin County, MInnesota, e)lcept 'hot portion of Troct. A
and e lying Southerly 0' the Northerly right-of-way llne of CQunty Road Number 3 as descflbed In F'lnol Certificate
Document Number 1584165, and eweept1ng furlke, those ports of SOld Troct. A, 8 and C shown os Porcel No. 29A,
~9S, 29C, 29D, 29E ond 2gr on City of Hopkins Righi of WQY Plot No 1, Hennepon County. Mlnnesolo
Porcel 2.
Lots 3, 4, ~, 6, 7, e, 9 and 10, Block 13, WEST MINNEAPOLIS CENTER, e'cepl that part 01 eold Lots 3, 4, ~. 6 and
7 shewn os Pore.1 34B on City of Hopkins Right of Way Plat No 1. Hennepin County, ~Innlttoto
Torrens Property
Torrens Certificate No 1110134
Tract C
Porcel 1.
Lots 1 and 2, Slack 13, YotST MINNEAPOLIS CENTER, e,cept thot port of sold Lot. shown os Parcel 34C on City 01
Hopkin. Rlgh I of Woy Plot No I;
411 of vacated North ond South 011.)' I" sold Slack 13 lying between the Westerly ..tension acroll It of the North
line of sold Lot I and the Sout"w.sterly evtenslan aerosa U of the Southeasterly line of laid Lot 1j
A/I 01 tho Northea.t ond Southwest vacated olley In Block 13 I}'ng between the Northerly e,ten.lon acrou It of the
Eosl /lne of sold Lot 2, In sold Black 13 and Ihe West /lne 01 ~ol 7 In sold Slack 13. WEST MINNEAPOLIS CENTER,
Hennep," CQl.Jnty, Mlnnesola.
Parcel 2.
Lois 14 and 1~ elCcept Ihe EQlt 16 feel 0' Lots 14 and 15. Lots 16 throug'" 26, In elUSIve, Block ., WEST
MINNEAPOLIS CENTER, Hennepon County, Minnesota
~orcel 3'
Thol port of vacaled Monroe Avenue, dedicated In WEST MINNEAPOLIS CENTER, lying betwun Ihe Westerly e,lanslon
J;~:o~~ ~Io~t ti;, ~or~:I~ln:'ot.f :~~::t 4ih~s:~:rr~a:he~::f L:~o~~U~~w~~~~~r ~;:e2~o~ ::d03:~t o~f ~~~ :rU~~::i~:r'y
Right 01 Way Plot No 1: Thai pori 01 vacQted Flr.t Street North, dedlcolad in YotST MINNEAPOLIS CENTER, lying
be'...en the Southerly ..tensions oeross II of the W.,t /lne of the Ea.t 1600 feel 0' Lot 14 and !he We.t /lne of
Lol 14 In Block 4, M:ST UINNEAPOLIS ctNTER, Hennepin County, t.Alnnes9ta.
THIRO AOO/T'/ON
"'1/) ""11'1~'
VA,yHSY PII~StJlJSAC/f
--------------1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I ~ I
I ~ I
I ~ I
I ~ I
_.J L_____
,,/'
-?;
PIl(')pnnv nr~r.RIPnnN 1 (~nl'll \,
(Per CommerclQI PQrtners Title, LLC 0$ ogenl for Lawyers Title Insurence CarporQllon
Commitment for Title Insurance rile No. 2~871 Second Sijpplement, doted August 31, 200~)
Trocl C (cont.):
Poreal 4:
A Troct of land comprising a port of the former rI9ht-o'-wOY of BurUn910n Railroad Company
In the Northwest Quarter 0' the Southweet Quarter 0' Section 19, Town.hlp 117, Range 21,
Hennepin County, Mlnn.,olo; 0 port of Lot. I, 2 and 3, Slock 9, YotST MINNEAPOLIS CENTER:
a part of vocoted rlrst Street North: ond on undeelgnolad triangular tract In YotST
MINNEAPOLIS CENTER adjolnlnv Ih. North /lne of rlr.t Street North and the Wo.t /lno of
Adam, Avenue, all dtlcrlbed OS follows:
Beginning at the Inter.ectlon 01 the Westerly line of Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO,
1465, riles of Registrar of Titles, Counly of Hennepin. with the South line Of the North 18000
'eet of laid Northwllt Cuart.r 0' the Southw..t Quort,r: thence on on ollumed bearing of
South 89 degrees 35 minutes 39 seconds We.t olong aald South III'" 0 distance of 9729
feet; thence South 20 degr.ee 22 minute. 42 second. West a dl.tanee 0' 153,29 feet;
thence Southerly 410.71 feet olonV 0 tongentlol curv. eoncove to \he Eo.t, having 0 radius 01
~~:.~~ ~I~~~ o;,d vii:S\e'llr~~;r'~L1~' C~~:Ee~re.".;'\d 4~e~~~;e~n~1 b~~~~n~~u:~ ~hoe d~~~~~~y i~ne of
~i"~~~~n~~ ~....~n:~O~ee~al~o~.I\~~I:~I~~ ~f d~:t~~~~ng~, ~;.1~e f~:~thth~~e~el~~~~e~l~ ~3~~:'
feet olong 0 non-tangentlal curve concave to th, Eoet hO"'''9 Q rodlu. 924 93 feet, 0 centrol
angle of 9 degrees 31 mlnut.. 03 ISconds ond 0 chord whleh beore Soulh II degreee 21
mlnutee 21 lI~onde Ealt to the Eosterly line of sold Block 9: thence Northerly olang eald
~~~:~rl~01l~~g~::I'~4 e~I~~~~; ~~ ~~~o~~~t~:~:t~~n~n:OI~f ~~~~h~O:;::I:'I?~:-t~i~:ypo\~fn;:
beginning, Hennepin County. Mlnntloto.
Pareel 5,
Thai PQrl of vacoted Adorns Avenue, dedlcoted In YotST I.IINNEAPO~IS CENTER, lying SOijttterly
of 'he Southeasterly IIno of former rI9ht-o'-wqy of Burllnlilton Norther" Railroad Company and
~E~~~~~E~ ~~~OfO~~;~y d~~~rl~..:!:I~~.n:eet~~:~~'~~e~~y. o7'o~~t t~:rt~e[~~I~:~n~~ f~. Troct 0,
Northeoeterly line of sold Tract D 0 diet once of 6.17 leet: thence Northwe.terly alonV a
tonventlol ~urve \0 the right having 0 rodlu. of 92493 r..t 10 the West line of vacated
Adams Avenue and t"'.re terminating. Hennepin County, Mlnne.oio.
Torren. Prop.rty
Torr'nl Certificate No. 1 tl01J~
120
-
rEEl
. OENOTES SET IRON MONUMENT R,L,S, NO, 17256
UNLESS NOTES OTHERWISE
SEt SHEtTS 1 THRU 4 rOR ADDITIONAL SURVEY NOTES.
LEGEND, TOPO, UTILITY AND LDCA TION INrORMA nON
60
PR(')Pj:'RTY nr~CRIPTION .,
(Per Commercial Partner, Title, LLC 01 <:Igen' 'or l.awyers Tille
Insurance Corporotlon Commitment for Title Insuronce rile No
26289 rlrst Supplemenlol, effective dote December 31, 2005)
Lot 11, 12 and 13. and the Eooterly 18 teet of Lots 14 ond 1~,
Block 4. WEST MINNEAPOLIS CENTER. Honnepln County. Minnesota
Abstract Property
JV
COVNTy "OAf)
CBRO-SII';I'lI'C DeCO
C8RC~SI0'S4'5J.. M.AS
,-g'JI'UJ.OCCO /'
r,,9'JI'Z6. MEAS <
R" 924 9J '-,
L"ISJ 7S "'!AS
/_ISJ 61 oeeo
~
~
.
~,
J..
~'t
~
~-=~
--~-
.."
lIJ
o.
~
AUAR
BOUNDARY
-------
PID /9f1121/JOI02
ASM fO/llPMfNr 41 SUPPL y
JJJ 2NO 57 Ne
2
o
LOT
o
'\
o
~
\)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60 0
~
SCALE
I
/
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
/
m
/-
I~
/;0
1m
IVJ
I
Ill)>Z
~j;S
c!l ;lJm
m g"
~5
i!l~
:0;-<
_Ill
;, ;,
8 Q.
-a'E
~ S
[-
(eonL)
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 4
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Excelsior Crossings Office Development - Hopkins, Minnesota
~
~
f
~
~
~
rn
(~I)I
o
cO
r--
~:
6
z
<5
::::;
W
I-
<(
o
~
x
u
~~~~ ~;8
f!ltj ~~~
Cl ti:i! ~3l t
x JJ! ~
ii
'C
..
Ci
ci
..;
c
.c
~
i
~
o
~
CJ
~
o
E
...0 "
.<>-<:
i~i
~~~
0.0_
i:~~ .
c,>oo
,2a;.<0
0.0. ..
"."
iit!
~Ei~
~ti~
~:J~:
b~3o
:e:i
o
~
~
CALL
SITE NOTES
MASTER SITE PLAN IS FOR A PROPOSED REVISION TO THE
UPDA TED AUAR DOCUMENT AND IS ILLUSTRATIVE. MASTER PLAN
HAS BEEN PREPARED BY OPUS AND RLK INC.
TYPICAL FULL SIZE 90. PARKING STALLS WITHIN THE PARKING
RAMP STRUCTURES ARE 8.5'x18' AND THE SURFACE PARKING
STALLS ARE 9'x18' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
IS PARKED AT 4 STALLS / 1000 SF SLOG
Call 48 Hours before digging
GOPHER STATE 01
TwIn Cities Area 851-454-0002
..... Toll Free 1-800-252-1166
1.4 ACRE
4 SLOG TRACT
( I
o
D
CJJ
ji
, I
~ i
L-J
Z
iii
~
u
,~
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
iUi
j ifl
11}*
,. --.
'"
::::)
e:L
o
(C+
00 OZ
C> W<(
~ ~-I
00 <(0..
&;0
~ o..Q:
0lS :::>~
~ 000
~W<(
~ (f)~
urO
-J o..Q:
W 0<(
o Q::J
X 0..<(
W
Vl
Z
o
in
5
w
~
IS PARKED AT 5 STALLS / 1000 SF SLOG
200
~
FEET
PARKING
RAno
o
4.1/1000
~
'1
100
l
IN
o STAllS 0 STAllS
--
2,990 STALlSI 3.064 STALLS
o
~
SCALE
PARKING
PROVIDED
PARCEL S IS ZONED B-P.
PARKING
REQUIRED
840 STALLS
1,040 STALLS
1.080 STALLS
30 STALLS
2,990 STAllS
BUILDING SUMMARY I USE CHART
BUILDING # I BUILDING ~NG PARKING
GRAND SO. FT. USE REQUIRED
BUILDING A 210.000 SF OFFICE
260,000 SF OfFICE
270,000 SF OFtlCE
6,000 SF RETAIL
746,000 SF ~lf~L.t
BUILDING
AREA
o Sf
746.000
OFFICE USE
(4/1000).
RETAIL USE
(5/1000).
THE 28 AC.
PARa:L
USE
INS'TiTU'Ti'ONAL
(CITY)
COMMERCIAL
(Of'flCE)
SITE DATA CHART
SITE
AREA
132.167 SF
3.0 AC
1.219,985 SF
BUILDING C
CHIMNEY
PARCEL
MAIN
TOTAL
TWIN CITIES AND
WESTERN RAILROAD
;:iE1 co
""('I 0
....1") ...'-
uo ...."
3~ ~,
!fo 0
('I ~
""
~~
;;:
SF
FIGURE 4
PLAN DATE: OCT. 17 2006
EXISTING
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
I
I
Ii
!!
I~
~
~
l:!
If
~
~
II
i~
Iii
~}
"0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 5
PROPOSED GRADING, DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Excelsior Crossings Office Development - Hopkins, Minnesota
'"
....
'"
U'l
U'l
z
::E
i
~
c
c
~
~
u
..g
(~ )1
~
c(
o
o
10
"
~
Cl
....
'"
~
o
~~g
O-~
~~]
~~1
itE
c:..
.c
:E
CD
Ci
ci
r.J
c
.c
~
i
~
II
~ 1)=
li!!-
lC Jj
II
V>>
::)
D-
O
<Ct
~~~~
..c C.r ~~...
~j~~
Q~x~
:::;;
E
~~:5
~i~
!~ ~
Q.o~
i.~~ .
j~~{;
Q.g..=
~~ fi
~~50
_ >.,...:t.!
~E].s
t:t..m(f)
8i ~ 4J
~:J:J:
;~~o
s;4J"CI;
_ eo.g
o
~
~
iil
(f)
z
o
en
5
w
~
CALL
CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES
OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.
THE SITE GRADING OPERATIONS, WHEN COMPLETED, SHALL
RESULT IN ALL AREAS BEING GRADED TO "PLAN SUBGRADE
ELEVATION". THIS "PLAN SUBGRADE ELEVATION" SHALL BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR BUILDING
AND PAVEMENT AREAS. THE "PLAN SUBGRADE ELEVATION" IN
THE PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY AREAS SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY CHECKING THE PAVEMENT SECTION DETAILS
AND REFERRING TO PAVING PLAN FOR LOCATIONS AND LIMITS
OF VARIOUS PAVEMENT SECTIONS.
ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.
CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002) FOR
UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIP, STOCKPILE AND RE-SPREAD
SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 4 INCH DEPTH
(COMPACTED) TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR
SEEDED.
ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE OR
GUTTER LINE GRADES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Call 48 Hours before digging
GOPHER STATE ONE
Twin Cities Area 651-454-0002
MH. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166
REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR CURRENT HORIZONTAL SITE
DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT.
GRADING NOTES
- - -
-
-----u- ~
r
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY SUNDE LAND SURVEYING.
69
TOP NUT OF 2ND FIRE HYDRANT EAST OF HWY
ON SOUTH SIDE OF 2ND ST. N.E.
ELEVATION = 923.10 FEET
BENCHMARKS
BM #1.)
TOP OF SPIKE IN 2ND POWER POLE SOUTH OF 2ND
ST. N.E. ON WEST SIDE OF 1 ST ALLEY WEST OF
JACKSON AVE. S.
ELEVATION = 914.96 FEET
8M #2.)
(f) oZ
e" W<(
Z I-.....J
en <(Q.
(f)z Oe"
O:::eQ.Z
0:::.:::>_
~ 0
-0<(
o:::~ Wo:::
~ (f)e"
-~O
~ Q.o:::
W 0<(
() 0::::::>
X Q.<(
W
:::EI CD
....('.1 0
1-1"') ~"-
~g ~~
~o "-
0..0 ......
('.I ......
....
~t()
Ii:
TOP NUT OF 1ST FIRE HYDRANT WEST OF JACKSON
AVE. S. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EXCELSIOR BLVD.
ELEVATION = 925.45 FEET
FIGURE 5
PLAN DATE: NOV. 27 2006
8M #3.)
ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON MNDOT BENCHMARKS
A2706 A1 AND 2706 A2
200
FEET
~
r
00
"l.
IN
o
~
SCALE
e 2006 RLK INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
"'
i
Ii:
i
~
;g
~
~
~
i
E~
88
..~
il
~!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
ATTACHMENT A
DECEMBER 200T UPDATE TO THE MAY 2006
UPDATED AUAR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
December 2006 Update to the Updated Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Excelsior Crossings Office Development - Hopkins, Minnesota
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 2006 Update to the May 2006
Updated AUAR
Traffic Impact Study
Excelsior Crossings Office Development
(North Annex Site)
Hopkins, MN
November 27, 2006
Prepared For:
, OPUS.
i'H1U.I)UHl .ntvOHO<
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Opus Northwest, LLC
10350 Bren Road
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Prepared By:
RLK Incorporated
Minnetonka Office
6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100
Minnetonka, MN 55343
952-933-0972
RLK Project No. 2006-032-M
Creating extraordinary
Communities
----
_..
-II
. -
1.1
....
Ir
.. _I
---....
.:
.
. .....
.
~iiiiI
.-
..
_.
.-
.
'"
RLK
( INCORPORATED )
"'-/
-
_111-
...--
-
..I
--
I- ·
.-
· 111-
II..
.- ~a:;
... .... .
-- ..-
-..... -
.. .
- -III. - .. . .
I.. .---
III ....... 1II.,lJ.
-- --..-..
-III -.
--.II1II ....... ..
.
- ..
_. III .
II -_.
--.. .
..-: ....
.---.. .......;;
. --
-. ......
--. .. _ .-:.l
-
...
-. -...
- .
-1..- -
....
- ..- - "-.
....
-.
. ...
II .
. ..
-
-
I
I
I
.
.
.
II~
-
-
-
.. III
--
.
..
..-
III
.
..
-.I
.
II
.
..
..
--
.-
.... III ..
. :..
... "-111.-
---.
... - -I .
. .--....
... -
- .......-
. ... -. .
-. - ...
.. ... -.-JJII8-
.. -
..........
- --
- .....-
..
.
.
-.
.
.
-.
II1II
- .
L
..
.
--
.
.
.
..
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December ADAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
Introduction
Background
In early 2006, RLK prepared a Traffic Impact Study to be included as part of an Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) document for the City of Hopkins on behalf of developer Opus Northwest,
LLC for a site to become the future "Excelsior Crossings Office Development." The Traffic Impact
Study assumed the construction of approximately 680,000 square feet of general office space with
approximately 9,000 square feet of supporting retail land use. The Excelsior Crossings Office
Development AUAR was approved by the City of Hopkins on May 16th, 2006.
The site has a history of potential development concepts. In fact, the May, 2006 AUAR was an update to
an AUAR document prepared for the City of Hopkins on behalf of Medica, Inc. in 2001, proposing the
construction of 600,000 square feet of corporate headquarters on the site. At that time, the site owned by
SuperValu, Inc., was occupied by warehousing, and was known as the ''North Annex" site. The "Medica
North Annex Site" AUAR was approved by the City of Hopkins in September, 2001. Medica did not
proceed with the proposed corporate headquarters, and until November, 2006, the vacant SuperValu
warehouse remained on the site.
In early November, 2006, demolition of the vacant SuperValu North Annex warehouse began to prepare
for construction of the Excelsior Crossings Office Development.
As of mid November, for December, 2006 AUAR submission, the proposed square footage of the office
land use for the site has been increased by 60,000 sJ. Under the current December, 2006 proposal, the
AUAR site would include 740,000 square feet of general office space with 6,000 square feet of
supporting retail land use. This change, which requires an update to the May, 2006 AUAR, resulted in
the need for this Traffic Study.
The May, 2006 Excelsior Crossings Traffic Impact Study is attached as Appendix A. The Medica Traffic
Impact Study, part of the September, 2001 North Annex Site AUAR, is included as Appendix B.
Protect Site
The project site is situated in Hopkins, Minnesota, in the northeast quadrant of the interchange of Trunk
Highway (TH) 169 and Excelsior Boulevard. The site is bounded on the east/southeast by Jackson
Avenue, on the north by 2nd Street NE, on the south by Excelsior Boulevard and on the west by TH 169.
Figure 1, "Vicinity Map," illustrates the site location within the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. Figure
2, "Study Area Roadway Network," shows the location of the site in greater detail, and notes the
intersections within the updated AUAR study area roadway network (identical to those of the May 16th,
2006 AUAR Traffic Impact Study). All figures are included at the end of the study.
Access to the site is proposed at three locations. The primary access is proposed to be the currently
unused west leg of the existing St. Louis Street/Jackson Avenue intersection. Based on the results of this
traffic study, a traffic signal is forecast to be warranted at this entrance. The second access (not forecast
to warrant a traffic signal) is a proposed driveway onto 2nd Street NE, approximately 620 feet west of
Jackson Avenue. Lastly, an entrance approximately 150 feet north of the primary entrance will serve
primarily the onsite retail land use. Internal site roadways would connect the accesses to on-site surface
and structured parking facilities. Figure 3, "Concept Site Plan," details the layout of the site and access
locations.
RLK Inc. Page 1
G \City of Hopkms\2006-032-M\]echmcal Data\Traffic\report\2006-11-14 Updated Site\Final TIS 11-27 v2.doc
Dec 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
Study Procedure
The primary reasons for completing this Traffic Study Update are to verify whether the conclusions
drawn in the May, 2006 AUAR Traffic Impact Study remain valid and to assess any additional impact
resulting from the proposed increase in office square footage.
The process to be used for this study will be similar to that utilized for the May, 2006 AUAR Update
Traffic Impact Study. That study compared traffic operations of the proposed 680,000 s.f. office site with
the traffic operations detailed in the 2001 Medica Traffic Impact Study. This report compares the
operations of the proposed 740,000 s.f. office development with the operations described in the
previously approved May, 2006 ADAR for the 680,000 s.f. office development plan. Where results
forecast worse conditions than anticipated in the May, 2006 document, further roadway improvements or
mitigation measures are suggested.
Within this study, additional focus was placed on five items due to special request from the City and/or
surrounding neighborhood.
~ Operations at the St. Louis Street/Jackson Avenue intersection as the primary site access
intersection.
~ Vehicular queuing on Jackson Avenue between the primary site access and Excelsior Boulevard,
as well as on Excelsior Boulevard between Jackson Avenue and the east Trunk Highway 169
Ramp intersection.
~ Investigation of ramp metering practices at the Excelsior Boulevard Trunk Highway 169 on-
ramps.
~ Traffic calming and increased pedestrianlbicycle friendliness on 2nd Street NE/Minnetonka Mills
Road.
~ Truck circulation within and around the site.
Existin2: Traffic Conditions
As described in the May, 2006 AUAR Update, the existing conditions of the nearby roadway system were
documented by a field inventory conducted by RLK the week of February 6th, 2006. Data gathered in the
field was supplemented with signal timing data from MnDOT, Hennepin County, and the City of
Hopkins. Manual turning movement counts were conducted the same week from 7:00-9:00 AM and
4:00-6:00 PM to document existing Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at all study area
intersections. The 2006 existing traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 4. No additional data was
gathered for this Updated AUAR.
No-Build Traffic Conditions
Background Growth
As described in the May, 2006 AUAR Update, several development projects in the vicinity of the site are
slated for completion before the ultimate 2020 design year of this study. Growth in background traffic
due to each of these developments was taken into account as part of the analysis. The specific
developments accounted for, along with the number of trips generated, are summarized in Table 1.
RLK Inc. Page 2
G:\City of Hopkins\2006-032-M'_ Technical Data'Traffic\report\2006-11-14 Updated Site\Final TIS 11-27 doc
Dee 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
Further detail on the nature of each of the developments is provided in a January 21 st memo by RLK and
subsequent email correspondence from the City of Hopkins, included as Appendix D.
Table 1.
Off-Site Back round Develo ments and Tri
Sizes and ITE
Land Use
Numbers
62 units; 230
4,500 s.f.; 820
data per
A endix D
data per
A endix C
data per
A endix D
Oak Ridge Area Condominiums 55 units; 230 24 28 322
Town and Country Dodge Site Potential 36 131 1,503
Redevelo ment 35,000 s.f.; 820
Ho kins House Condominiums 54 units; 230 24 28 316
Overall Total 246 .502 5,207
Note: Data from Trip Generation. 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, or as noted in Appendices.
Development
s Assumed
PM Trips Total Daily
Trips
33 363
17 193
50 510
135 1,500
80 500
AM Trips
28
5
SuperValu Warehouse Expansion
50
Knollwood Super Target Expansion
64
Hopkins School District Bus Depot
15
At the time of the existing traffic counts, the Knollwood Target (Free-Standing Discount Store) northwest
of the intersection of TH 7 and Blake Road was closed for conversion to a Super Target (Free-Standing
Discount Superstore). To account for trips lost due to the closure, the results of the 2004 Target traffic
study completed for the proposed expansion by SRF Consulting Group, available in Appendix C, were
utilized in calculating traffic attributable to the former site, which was added to the existing counts.
In addition to the specific developments noted above in Table 1, a flat overall background growth rate of
1.0% annually was added to existing traffic volumes to achieve the 2020 No-Build volumes.
Roadwav Improvements
No further roadway improvements to the study area are anticipated; however one change to the possible
light rail line has been identified. Current plans for the light rail line near the site envision a raised
crossing over the Excelsior BoulevardlMilwaukee Street/Jackson Avenue intersection. (Figure 12,
described later in the report, shows the potential path of the light rail line, along with the station nearest
the site.)
The 2020 No-Build Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5.
Build Traffic Conditions
Trip Generation / Distribution / Assignment
The number of new trips to be generated by the proposed development was estimated for the weekday
AM and PM peak hours using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation. ih
Edition. Following the data and methodology in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook. 2nd Edition, a pass-by
trip reduction is not considered. Shared trips between the office and supporting retail were assumed and
RLK Inc. Page 3
G:\City of Hopkins\1006-032-M\ _Technical Data\Traffic\report\2006-11-14 Updated Site'Final TIS 11-27 .doc
Dec 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27,2006
amount to between 1 % and 50/0 of the total number of retail trips, depending on the peak period. Table
2A summarizes the trip generation estimates for the current December, 2006 AU AR proposed site:
Table 2A.
Current December, 2006 AUAR Trip Generation Estimatesl.
L dU ITE SIZ. e AM AM PM PM
an se Code Enter Exit Enter Exit
General Office 710 740,000 s.f. 1,009 138 187 915
Specialty Retail 814 6,000 s.f. 4 2 7 9
Less shared tripsz. 0 0 -1 -I
Total New Trips 1,013 140 193 923
Assumed for Analysis 1,153 1,116
1. Data from Trip Generation. 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2. Per Trip Generation Handbook. 2nd Edition, published by ITE.
Weekday
Total
8,147
266
-17
8,396
Table 2B provides a summary of the trip generation estimates for the previous May, 2006 AUAR site:
Table 2B.
Previous Ma , 2006 AUAR Trip Generation Estimatesl.
Land Use ITE Size AM AM PM PM
Code Enter Exit Enter Exit
General Office 710 680,000 s.f. 927 126 172 842
Specialty Retail 814 9,000 s.f. 6 4 11 14
Less shared tripsz. 0 0 -1 -1
Total New Trips 933 130 182 855
Assumed for Analysis 1,063 1,037
1. As documented in the April 2006 Traffic Impact Study prepared by RLK.
Weekda
y Total
7,487
399
-20
7,865
Table 2C shows the increase in number of trips estimated for the site from the May, 2006 AUAR to the
December, 2006 AUAR:
Table 2C.
Trip Generation Estimate Increase from Previous May, 2006 to Current Dec., 2006 AUAR Sites
AM Enter I AM Exit PM Enter I PM Exit Weekday Total
+80 I +10 +11 ~ +68
+90 +79
+531
By comparison, the current December, 2006 AUAR proposal is anticipated to generate 8% more AM
peak hour trips, 8% more PM peak hour trips, and 7% more daily trips than the previously approved May,
2006 AUAR site. The actual proposed increase in square footage for the site is 8%.
The distribution of new site-generated traffic to and from the adjacent street system was based on existing
traffic patterns and input from the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County. Figure 6 shows this
distribution pattern, along with the actual volume of site-generated traffic during the AM and PM peak
hours. Figure 7 illustrates the estimated 2020 Build peak hour traffic volumes.
Table 3 compares the current AUAR Average Daily Traffic (ADT) estimates of the 2020 Build volumes
to those of the previous May, 2006 AUAR and to those of the 2001 Medica AUAR. The table includes
the 2001 Medica AUAR ADT estimates to provide a comparison of the previous developments that have
been approved by the City for the site.
RLK Inc. Page 4
G:\City of Hopkins\2006-032-M\_Technical Data'Traffic'report\2006-II-J4 Updated SiteIFinaJ TIS 11-27.doc
Dee 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
Table 3.
Intersection Enterin2 ADT Estimates: Previous 2020 Build vs. Updated AUAR 2020 Buildl.
2001 Medica Previous May, Current Dec, % Increase
AUAR 2020 2006 AUAR 2020 2006 AUAR 2020 from May, 2006
Build Estimates Build Estimates Build Estimates to Current
43,200 37,400 38,800 4%
58,800 55,400 57,400 4%
10,400 9,200 9,600 4%
6,600 5,800 6,100 5%
20,700 18,600 19,300 4%
Intersection
TH 7 & 5th A ve.l Oak Ridge Rd.
TH 7 & Blake Rd.l Aquila Ave.
5th Ave. & Minnetonka Mills Rd.
2nd St. west of Jackson Ave.
Blake Rd. & 2nd St.
St. Louis St./Site Access &
Jackson Ave.
Excelsior Blvd.& West TH 169
Ramps
Excelsior Blvd. & East TH 169
Ramps/Depot Coffee Shop
Excelsior Blvd. & Jackson
Ave./Milwaukee St. 32,700 30,300
Excelsior Blvd. & Blake Rd. 33,000 31,000
Overall Total 280AOO 259..700
1. Assumes "K" factor of 1 0 (peak periods each contribute one-tenth of daily traffic).
10,900
11,000
1l,800 7%
30,600 4%
33,000 4%
31,800 5%
32,300 4%
270,700 40/0
32,100
29,400
32,000
31,600
As shown, the currently proposed December, 2006 AUAR 2020 Build volumes estimates are 4% higher
overall than those of the previous May, 2006 study, but still less than the 2001 Medica AUAR 2020
Build estimates. Accordingly, 2020 Build traffic operations with the December, 2006 AUAR 2020 Build
traffic volume estimates have been reanalyzed to determine if any additional impacts are present over that
which was reported for the May 16th, 2006 AUAR 2020 Build traffic volume estimates.
Operational Analvsis Methodolo!!V
Traffic operations within the study area have been analyzed using the industry-current Synchrol
SimTraffic 6 software package, which uses the data and methodology contained in the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. This analysis method is consistent
with that used in the 2001 Medica AUAR and May, 2006 Excelsior Crossings Office Development
AUAR.
The signal timing information received from MnDOT, Hennepin County, and the City of Hopkins was
used as a starting point for the analysis. The choice of timing plan can affect the LOS of an overall
intersection, and when comparing individual movement LOS, the fine details of the timing plan become
even more significant. A timing plan close to that assumed in the earlier AUAR was therefore developed
to provide for an even comparison. To arrive at the proper timing plan, cycle lengths, splits and offsets
were first modified from existing conditions to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes, and then were
adjusted only where individual movement LOS varied significantly between the current and previous
studies.
Operational Analvsis Results
Study Area Overall
For the AM peak hour on an overall intersection Level of Service (LOS) basis, every intersection except
one remained at the same overall LOS when compared to the May, 2006 AUAR with the increase of site-
RLK Inc. Page 5
O:\City of Hopkins\2006-032-M"-. Technical Data\Traffic\report\2006-1 1- 14 Updated Site\Final TIS 11-27.doc
Dee 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27,2006
generated traffic. The only intersection to experience a change in overall LOS was the St. Louis
Street/Site Access and Jackson Avenue intersection, which declined to a LOS C from LOS B.
For the PM peak hour the overall intersection LOS with the increase in site-generated traffic remained the
same for all intersections.
Figure 8 provides both individual movement and overall intersection levels of service for both the AM
and PM peak periods for the updated site. Comparison of Figure 8 in this Updated AUAR with Figure 8
from the May, 2006 AUAR indicates that some of the individual movement levels of service change with
the increase of site-generated traffic. Specifically:
For the AM peak hour:
TH 7/Sth Avenue:
~ The Eastbound (EB) left turn movement improves to LOS D from LOS E
~ The WB through movement declines to LOS C from LOS A
~ The NB right turn movement improves to LOS B from LOS C
It is noted that a slightly different timing plan was assumed at this intersection to accommodate the
incremental increase in site-generated traffic over the May, 2006 AUAR resulting in improved level of
service for two movements, and degraded LOS for one movement. Again, the actual timing plan
implemented will affect the LOS at the intersection.
Excelsior Boulevard! Jackson A venue/ Milwaukee Street:
~ The shared EB through and right turn movement declines to LOS C from LOS B
~ The shared WB through and right turn movement declines to LOS D from LOS C
St. Louis Street/Site Access/Jackson Avenue:
~ The SB left turn movement declines to LOS C from LOS B
For the PM peak hour:
Excelsior Boulevard! Jackson Avenue/ Milwaukee Street:
~ The shared EB through and right turn movement declines to LOS D from LOS C
~ The shared WB through and right turn movement declines to LOS C from LOS B
St. Louis Street/Site Access/Jackson Avenue:
~ The shared WB through and right turn movement improves to LOS B from LOS C
~ The shared NB through and right turn movements declines to LOS B from LOS A
In terms of vehicular queuing, depending on the timing plan chosen, the queue lengths will vary. In the
May, 2006 Excelsior Crossings Office Development AUAR, the queuing impacts at the Jackson
RLK Inc. Page 6
G:\City of Hopkins2006-032-M"-. Technical Data\Traffic\report .2006-) 1-14 Updated Site\FinaJ TIS 11-27.doc
Dec 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27,2006
A venue/St. Louis Street/primary site access intersection were closely investigated as it is the primary
access to the site. To be consistent with the previous study, queuing impacts at this intersection were
further analyzed with the increase of site-generated traffic.
Jackson A venue/St. Louis StreetlPrimarv Site Access Intersection
Preliminary analysis revealed that with only a single northbound left turn lane for vehicles entering the
site (even as free movement), congestion will begin to occur upstream in the Excelsior Boulevard
eastbound left turn lane at Jackson A venue. Congestion appears to occur at that location, even though
excess capacity is available, due to a majority of vehicles attempting to use the left-most left turn lane.
Accordingly, it was assumed and is suggested that the design of this intersection should allow for dual
northbound left turning movements entering the site, as initially identified in both previous AUAR
studies.
Further analysis revealed that although all movements operate at LOS D or better during both peak
periods, the following 95th percentile queuing results from an average of five SimTraffic simulations
should be accounted for in the design of the intersection:
AM peak:
~ Eastbound queue of 60 feet. (On-site roadway yet to be constructed.)
~ Northbound queue of 320 feet. Remains within available turn lane storage distance of 325 feet,
and link distance to Excelsior Boulevard of 580 feet.
~ Southbound queue 100 feet. Exceeds southbound left storage distance 25 feet.
~ All other queues less t?an 100 feet and within storage bays.
PM peak:
~ Eastbound queue of215 feet. (On-site roadway yet to be constructed.)
~ Northbound queue 137 feet. Remai,ns within available storage bay distance.
~ Southbound queue 100 feet. Exceeds southbound left storage distance 25 feet.
~ All other queues at or less than 100 feet and within storage bays.
Based on these results, the following measures are suggested for the design of the primary site access
intersection, as detailed on Figure 9:
~ Restriping of the southbound approach to extend the left turn storage bay length from 75 feet to at
least 100 feet.
~ Design of the onsite eastbound approach to include a 215- foot right turn storage bay. Based on
Figure 3, the Concept Site Plan, this suggestion is accounted for.
~ Installation of a traffic signal when warranted.
~ Adjustment of signage and striping on the northbound approach to create dual left turn lanes and
shared through/right turn lane. This measure should be completed concurrently with installation
of the traffic signal.
~ Although beyond the 95th percentil~ and therefore unlikely, the potential for queues to extend
back to Excelsior Boulevard does exist. Signal timing for the intersection should be monitored
regularly to ensure safe operation.
RLK Inc. Page 7
G.\City of Hopkms\2006-032-M\_Technical Data\Traffic\report\2006-11-14 Updated Slte\Fmal TIS 11-27 v2.doc
Dec 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December ADAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
2nd Street NE/Monroe Avenue Intersection
This intersection was added to the list of study area intersections to better ascertain the impacts to local
streets near the project. Table 4 summarizes the results of the analysis for 2020 Build conditions.
Table 4.
Results of 2020 Analysis - 2nd Street NE/Monroe A venuel.
2020 Scenario
Measure of Effectiveness
No-Build
AM Peak PM Peak
A A
A B
Build
AM Peak PM Peak
A A
B B
Overall Level of Service
Nouthbound Approach LOS
Nouthbound Approach Average Delay per
Vehicle (sec.)
1. Results from Synchro.
11.7
lOA
13.0
9.3
The results show that the addition of site-generated traffic will only slightly impact operations at the
intersection, increasing AM peak hour delay on the southbound approach by an average of approximately
1.1 seconds per vehicle and increasing PM peak hour delay on the same approach by 1.3 seconds. Both
the overall intersection LOS and southbound approach LOS remain well within acceptable limits.
2nd Street NE/Secondarv Access Intersection
As detailed in the May, 2006 AUAR and reiterated in this Updated Study, results of the analysis confrrm
that additional roadway capacity will not be required to accommodate site-generated traffic at the 2nd
Street NE/Secondary Access intersection. Although a two-lane driveway is anticipated to provide for
acceptable operations, providing for potential expansion to a 3-lane driveway is suggested, in the event
intersection enhancements become required in the future. Figure 10 illustrates the concept of planning for
potential future expansion.
Ramp Meterin2: Practices
Currently the Excelsior Boulevard/Trunk Highway 169 on ramps are controlled during peak traffic
periods by the use of traffic ramp meter signals. These signals allow vehicles to enter the freeway one-
by-one, with the time between vehicles varied depending on factors including the level of service of the
adjacent freeway segment.
Concerns have risen over the potential for excessive queues from the ramp meters building sufficiently to
back up onto Excelsior Boulevard. Through conversations with MnDOT and review of ramp metering
studies performed in various ramp metering locations throughout the metro area, it was determined that
this possibility has been accounted for in the timing algorithm for releasing cars onto the freeway.
According to M~OT, queues extending to the adjacent arterial (Excelsior Boulevard in this case) is one
of the major factors considered in determining the length of time each vehicle must wait at the ramp
meter, a calculation called "timing algorithm." To accurately diagnose the length of the queue waiting to
enter the freeway, each on-ramp is monitored by loop detectors installed into the pavement that detect the
passage or presence of vehicles. Two loop detectors are installed on each entrance ramp, one near
Excelsior Boulevard at the beginning of the ramp and one at the end of the ramp immediately prior to
where vehicles enter the freeway. These two detectors work together to determine the queue length
present on the ramp by calculating the number of entering and exiting cars. In turn, the ramp meter signal
timing is adjusted as part of the complex timing algorithm. The initial ramp detector near Excelsior
\.
RLK Inc. Page 8
G:\City of Hopkins'1006-032-M'_ Technical Data\Traffic\report\1006-11-14 Updated Site\Final TIS 11-27.doc
Dee 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
Boulevard includes a "presence" function that allows it to determine if a stopped vehicle is present at the
end of the ramp. If it senses the presence of a stopped vehicle, the metering rate within the timing
algorithm is adjusted (or eliminated if necessary) to shorten the queue and eliminate potential backup onto
Excelsior Boulevard.
Effects on Local Streets
One of the primary goals of this AUAR Update is to ensure there is adequate access to the site while at
the same time limiting the impact to local streets. Based on the predicted trip distribution pattern, Figure
11 provides an estimate of the impact to local collector streets in terms of ADT added. When compared
to Figure 11 in the May, 2006 AUAR, the December, 2006 AUAR ADT is slightly higher. When
compared to Figure 7-2 in the Medica AUAR, all studied roadway segments are anticipated to experience
lower daily traffic volumes than previously forecast.
To encourage users of the site to access the site via the primary access rather than the 2nd Street NE
secondary access, modifications to 2nd Street NE near the site are suggested. These modifications should
both attempt to encourage use of alternate routes through the use of proper traffic calming techniques
and/or roadway capacity reduction measures, as well as promote bicycle and pedestrian use and
connectivity to the area trail system through proper roadway signage, striping and design techniques.
The following (also detailed in the May, 2006 AUAR) are a list of possible measures that could be
considered for implementation along Minnetonka Mills Road/2nd Street NE to achieve both of these
goals simultaneously:
>> Add sidewalk or increase accessibility to the trail adjacent to Burnes Park, to achieve a
continuous sidewalk from 5th Avenue to the Regional Trail.
>> Add landscaping or on-street parking along site frontage ,adjacent to the roadway.
>> Create a landscaping feature at the 2nd Street NE/Regional Trail intersection to increase driver
awareness of crossing traffic.
Alternate TransDortation Modes
The AUAR site is ideally located to provide for alternate commuter modes of transportation. Alternate
modes available include bicycling using the local arid regional trail network, walking using the ample
City of Hopkins sidewalk network, bus transit using one of five Metro Transit routes passing the site, or
LRT transit using the potential future Southwest Corridor Light Rail line. Figure 12 illustrates these
alternate options.
For commuters choosing bicycle as their alternate mode, three trails among an extensive regional and
local are available for use.
>> The Southwest Regional Trail connects the southwest suburbs to Uptown Minneapolis, passing
just to the south of the site across Excelsior Boulevard.
>> A regional trail connecting Hopkins with Cedar Lake and Downtown Minneapolis begins along
the west edge of the site.
>> A regional trail extending to the Lake Minnetonka area terminates in Downtown Hopkins, across
TH 169 from the site.
RLK Inc. Page 9
G:\City of Hopkins\2006-032-M\ _Technical Data'TrafficlJ'eport\2006-11-14 Updated Sitelf"inal TIS 11-27.doc
Dee 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27,2006
Commuters walking to the site from home or from transit stops will utilize the sidewalks network shown
on Figure 12. Sidewalk connections to Downtown Hopkins to the west and the Excelsior and Blake area
to the east are both available.
For transit commuters, six bus routes provide service to stops near the site.
~ Routes 12 and 664 pass by the site on Excelsior Boulevard.
~ Route 615 passes by the site on 2nd Street NE.
~ Route 665 passes near the site using Excelsior Boulevard to the west before turning onto 169 to
the north.
~ Routes 17 and 668 terminate on Blake Road 3 blocks to the east of the site.
Planning for the Southwest Light Rail Transit line continues. The nearest stations to the site would be
located near the Excelsior Boulevard/ll th Avenue South intersection approximately one-half mile west,
and near the Blake Road/2nd Street NE intersection approximately three blocks east. See Figure 12.
Truck Circulation
All truck traffic will use the primary site access at St. Louis Street/Site Access/Jackson Street intersection
and travel around the main circular development road that loops the buildings. Truck access at the 2nd
Street/Momoe Avenue intersection will be restricted through the design of the curbs and proper signing.
Moving trucks (WB-62) are the largest anticipated trucks and will only be present when a tenant is
moving in or out. Otherwise on a daily basis, the largest anticipated trucks are Fed-Ex/UPS-type delivery
trucks with a maximum of two to three trips per day. The design of truck delivery docks will be such that
trucks will be able to back up into loading areas and exit in a circular pattern (i.e. trucks that are traveling
clockwise around the site will continue traveling clockwise after they exit the dock area).
Conclusion
Analysis comparing traffic impacts from the currently proposed land uses in the December, 2006 AUAR
to the previously proposed land uses in the May, 2006 AUAR for the "Excelsior Crossings Office
Development" site has been completed to determine if the increase in land use density will create impacts
beyond those determined in the May, 2006 AUAR. Results of the analysis indicate that no further
roadway mitigation beyond that suggested in the May, 2006 AUAR is necessary.
The updated analysis included reassessing the study area roadway network with approximately 1,153 AM
peak hour, 1,116 PM peak hour and 8,396 daily site-generated trips throughout the study area roadway
network. This is an increase of 90 AM peak hour, 79 PM peak hour and 531 daily site-generated trips
over which was analyzed in the May, 2006 AUAR. The study found the roadway network, with the
previous proposed roadway geometry detailed in the May, 2006 AUAR, is able to accommodate the
addition of site-generated traffic due to the updated site plan. In particular, the overall intersection LOS is
predicted to decline for only one intersection with the increase in site-generated traffic
RLK Inc. Page 10
G:\City of Hopkins\2006-032-M'_ Technical Data\Traffic\report\2006- r 1-14 Updated Site\Final TIS 11-27.doc
Dee 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
Traffic Impact Study Figures
1. Vicinity Map
2. Study Area Roadway Network
3. Concept Site Plan
4. 2006 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
5. 2020 No-Build Scenario Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
6. Site-Generated New Trip Distribution and Assignment
7. 2020 Build Scenario Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
8. 2020 Build Scenario Peak Hour Levels of Service
9. Primary Access Mitigation Plan
10. Secondary Access Mitigation Plan
11. 2020 Local Street ADT
12. Alternate Transportation Mode Amenities
RLK Inc. Page 11
G:\Cit} of Hopkins\2006-032-M\_Technical Data\Traffic\report\2006-11-14 Updated ~itelFina1 TIS] J-27.doc
Dee 2006 Update to the Updated May 2006 AUAR
Excelsior Crossings - Hopkins, MN
\i
&.
..::
0
,.~ )
-
0 5
HENNEPIN COUNTY ~ I
CITY OF HOPKINS ;ALE IN MILES
F'i9ure ,
HOPKINS - EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS - UPDA TED AUAR 1
VICINITY MAP Project II
2006032M
MN
MN
MN
MN
Phone: 952 933 0972
Fa>.' 952 933 1153
www.r1kinc.com
Minnetonkfl. MN 55343
Duluth,
Ilam Lake,
I hbhin~.
Mlnllctollka.
Suite 100
~
RLK
( lNCOI\l'Ol\SI I'D )
"-../
6110 Bille Circle Drive
~
~
:;)
:i.
o
a
~
~
,-
o
:)
I
:t
:)
I
:t
:)
,-
:n
:v
5
2'
~
g
;:)
,-
~
o
;)
:;
::!
i:
ti
:v
I
,-
a
I
'l
'1
:)
,
o
:)
:)
'l
,-
~
;;c
:l..
o
r:
::>
~
~
:;
5-
:)
'"
o
::>
:)
'l
i
:)
5-
~
w
~
<(
-1
CD
LA.
,
\
,
\
'-- JACKSON
AVE, N.
BELMORE
vi
W
>
<(
w
o
0:::
Z
o
~
S\
\j 'f.. \v \v
~\\...~~
z
W
>
<(
z
o
I-
o
Z
:c
(f)
<(
3:
ST. S.
w
o
910
~O:::
<(
o
z
w
>
<(
.s::
L0
3rd ST. N.
2nd ST. N.
MAINSTREET
ST. N.
st
~
wI w
> >
<( <(
.s:: I ..r::
........ ........
N .-
.- .-
vi
W
>
<(
:5
EXCELSIOR BLVD
ST.
4th
o
(j)<(
ZO
-0:::
~(j)
D..(f)
00
I 0:::
U
z
~
<(
:5
'"
.-
S.
LEGEND
AVE
MALONEY
ST,
5th
()
~
F'i9ure ,
2
Project II
2006032M
STUDY AREA INTERSECTION WITH
EXISTING STOP CONTROL
STUDY AREA INTERSECTION WITH
EXISTING SIGNAL CONTROL
"DIu)
HOPKINS - EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS - UPDATED AUAR
STUDY AREA ROADWAY NETWORK
Duluth, MN
Ham Lake, MN
HibblOR. MN
MlOnetonka, MN
Phone: 952 933 0972
Fax: 952 933 lI53
www.rlkine.col11
Mml1ctonka. J\(N 55343
SUite 1
~
RLK
( INLOIIPOR;\'ITP )
~
6110 Blue Circle Drive
:;p
;:
:l
;i
:J
2
~
G
;;
,,;
'I
")
II
'I
I
5
L
:J
o
./
g-
3i
./
n
:;p
~
:v
n
5
~
:)
::!-
;;
)-
1)
g'
:;
:v
n
~
;;
~
~
'5
,J
:)
:l
./
:.>
5-
n
'oj
'i
o
:>
:>
'4
:5
'I
>
~
~
-_......~
~~I\
~\I
~J~f!
~\a
,",OPK\NS _ E~CELS\OR CROSS\NGS - UPO~1EO ~U~R
CONCEP1" S\1E PL~N
~
Q)
i,I1
'0
C
o
~
~
E.
::l
o
o
Q
soU1'tfI4ES1
Re.G\ON~1~\.
~
e.\S1\NG
1#'\C S\G~
~
~
PROPOSI!
S\G~
~
NOR1'" srn:
~CC6SS
. \
)e.C 2006 UPo~ "fe.O \L ~\ s
~U~R S'''fe. pLAN:' !- - - - - ~ \,- - - ~
I II I
2nd S1ftEE1
~
,----;
I //
I /
C//
.
uJ
~'
.
Z'
ME
~ ----
8us S10P ) L
i'
z"
'i
!S)lb\.. ~rtE.~ 2.1.32. Qe. :l:
GENER"\' oFfIcE 2.,0.000 s.f.
GE\'lE~(>.\. oFfIcE 2.60.000 s.f.
GE\'lER(>.\. oFfIcE 2.10.000 s.f.
oFfIcE-~E.V-'tED ~E'T"'\. 6.000 s.f.
GE\'lER(>.\. oFfIcE 2,30.000 s. f
GE\'lER(>.\. oFfIcE 2,30.000 s. f.
GE\'lER"\' oFfIcE 2.2.0.000 s.f.
oFfIcE-~E.V-'tED ~E'f"'\. 9.000 s.f.
)6 ~U~R I
.~N: /,
~
",.c,.N'T 'H~EI'\oUSlNG ...2.00.000 s.f.
-- ~~ '-
-- (.Jl.
srre. OA'TA
-- ~
LEGEND
EXISTING SIGNAL CONTROL
EXISTING STOP CONTROL
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
s'10
\2-,
~
()
XXX
XXX
::l'
~
:J
11
~
5
~
/ .
o J
, ~
I
:t
,
I
:t
3-
Jl
:p
5
g'
~
g
:J
/
::>
o
:)
Fi9ure ,
4
Project ,
2006032M
STUDY.
EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS - UPDATED AUAR
2006 EXISTING
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
",......,r-
NOTES:
1. Hwy. 7/BLAKE Rd. PM PEAK VOLUMES CALCULA lED FROM sRF's 2004 SUPERTARGET EXPANSION
2. ALL OlHER VOLUMES PER RLK COUNTS TAKEN WEEK OF 1/30/06.
HOPKINS -
Ouluth. MN
llanl L~kc. MN
H ibblt1j!;. :-'1N
Mil1nctonk~. MN
Phonc: 1)52 9)) 0972
r~).; 952 9'H t 15'\
,,"\vw.rlkinc.co)11
i\hnncwnka. !\IN 5<;34'\
$Ulte.
l\Fe
~
QNUlll1'OR:\'! 1-1) ")
~
(, \ \0 Blue Circle D.
/
~
I
'I
'1
,
I
o
,
,
::!-
~
;:
::l.
:)
L
::>
~
~
:;
5-
o
-..j
o
,
,
'I
LEGEND
EXISTING SIGNAL CONTROL
EXISTING STOP CONTROL
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
~
'vl^+-S
C'
~
........... ........ ........ ---
---
-- .
SITE
-
,....--
-;:::::::-
0
s.
~
-
--
HOPKINS - EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS - UPDA TED AUAR
2020 NO-BUILD SCENARIO TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~
~
:n
:l)
:;
~
~
~
;:I
'"
~
;:I
~
'"
so
I
'I
'1
::>
~
~
:;
Fi9ure I
5
Project 1#
2006032M
Duluth,MN
!lam Lake, MN
Illhbin~, MN
I\1lJ1nctonka, !\IN
Pl1onc: 952 933 0972
Pax: 952 9,3 1153
www,rlkillc,cnm
Minnetollka. MN 55343
Suite
~
( INcnlll'OIl "J FD )
~
6110 Blue Circle Drh'c ·
5-
o
"
o
:;l
:;l
...,
i
:;l
5-
:(
~
s1\JO'< I\REA 'l" ''''''..-
#<IA P~ Sl1E_GENER~"\tO 'TR\l""
PIA P~ S11E-GENER~"\tO "\RIPS
\)1~IBUllOl'l pERcEN,.~GE
~
s
()
xxx
xxx
S'l0'
\Z,
LEGEND
EXISTING SIGNAL CONTROL
PROPOSED SIGNAL CONTROL
PROPOSED STOP CONTROL
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
0'
~
o
vi
III
E
:3
is
>
;'
"
n
71
"
I
(5
[
:>
9-
Q.
E
III
;'
II)
C7'
5
Q)
n
5
t)
o
;!-
c
E
o
)-
III
C7'
5
a1
n
o
c:
c
~
c:
III
E
::l
t)
o
3-
:.>
EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS - UPDATED AUAR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
2020 BUILD SCENARIO
Htm~=
~NN
Pboae: 952 93S om
Pa: 952 93&115.1
"..,.dkiac.coal
MJnndonb, UN 55U3
'"
RLK
(~J
6110 Blue CUds Drive . Sllite 100 ·
I ST. S
- -
- .
~ -~=~ HOPKINS - EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS - UPDA TED AUAR
RLK. )'l..~~=
( INCDDICD.A'l1ID I Pboae: 952 93.1 (W72
"-./ Pa: 95293.1119 2020 BUILD SCENARIO PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
www.dJdac.cxa
6110 Blue Orde Delve . Sa tOO . M1nnetonb. NN 5~
EXISTING SIGNAl CONTROL ~
PROPOSED SIGNAL CONTROL S
PROPOSED STOP CONTROL ()
AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LOS X
PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LOS X
INTERSECTION LOS (AM/PM) A/A
S'J0 '"
~,
'"
'"
S~ O?-.
~
, ..............
~ " '.......
~...., ''--JACKSOt\1', ..............
. '" , .......
C/) ", A VE. N. ,.......
'''''' ......
" " "
,
z
w
>
<(
..c
..........
L()
3rd ST. N
2nd ST. N
st ST. N
Figure ,
8
Project ,
2006032M
O'l
;:
o
tIl
Ql
E
:I
15
>
'"
'4
~
"
I
(5
1:
.:>
9-
Q.
E
Ql
'"
III
0'0
g
Q)
f)
i5
u
o
~
c:
E
o
:(
'"
III
0'0
c:
:::
Ql
f)
o
c:
o
III
C
Ql
E
:I
U
o
3-
J
E
a.
o
n
Ii
o
::>
::>
'4
j
"
>
~
I @2006 RlK INC.
LEGEND
EXISTING STRIPING
PROPOSED STRIPING
FUTURE STRIPING
RIGHT-OF-WAY
I PROPOSED LANE DESIGNATION
EXISTING LANE DESIGNATION
I
I
I
I
I
0'1
:;=
t/
o
0'1
.:;J
- 11
I QI
CD"
~
s=
----- 0
rn
~
~ ()
~
<i1J ....
MODIFY
STRIPING TO
CREA TE
120-FOOT
LEFT TURN
STORAGE BAY
ADD CROSSWALK
STRIPING
./
to
o
,
UI
I
~
l-
I
'c
.c
l
N
f')
I
UI
j
::
u
f
a.
f')
N
I~
I('~'
/ EXISTING STOP
/ CONTROL
c:/
t::::J, l:
&'-4
&/~-
~(? St. Louis
&~ Street
t::::J
ADD TRAFFIC
SIGNAL WHEN
JUSTIFIED
ADD STOP BAR
STRIPING AT TIME
OF SIGNAUZA TION
( OPTIONAL)
EXISTING STRIPING
(TYP.)
CONVERT NORTHBOUND
APPROACH TO DUAL lEFTS.
SHARED THROUGH/RIGHT AT
TIME OF SIGNALIZATION
o 50
~ II ,
SCALE IN fEET
Duluth, MN
Ham Lake, MN
Hibbing, J\n-:
~1mnetonka, MN
Phone: 952 933 0972
Fax: 952933 1153
www.r1kmc.com
EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS - AUAR
PRIMARY ACCESS JACKSON AVE.
rlgure ,
9
6110 Blue Circle Drive. Suite 100 . Mmnetonka, MN 55343
Pr jec:l #
2006032M
I
r-r-
Duluth, MN
r J~nl I ,akc, MN
1 hbbing, MN
Minnctonk~, MN
Phone: 952 9.B 0972
r~x: 9529331153
www.rlklOc.cClnl
J\hnnetnnkll. MN 55~4~
Suite
~
RLK
( I'-;COlll'Ol\.\'I!'\) }
~
61lO Blue CIrcle Drive
:::J'I
:t
~
;)
:i
:;
:::.
o
g'
~
:ii
./
o
::>
r
:t
::>
I
:t
~
:n
3l
;;
:2'
~
::!
:J
./
::!
::I
:l
:;
~
n
3l
I
./
5'
I
'J
'1
::>
I
o
::>
::>
'J
./
~
it
;:).
::>
c
:;
~
~
:;
5-
n
o
::>
::>
'I
i
::>
5-
:{
,",Op~\NS _ E~CE\..S\OR CROSS\NGS - ~O~"{EO ~U~R
202.0 \..OC~\.. s1REE1' ~O1'
f\91,Jre f
\\
projeCt. I
'200603~
2020 BU\LO ,..01
pEF.cDl1'~GE crI~GE
S~0'
~'
999 7,.UI-V' .
1- 999 Sl1'E-GENEF.~ 1EO .....
~
~
+9%
$\1\
~I\
____9S1tm~
~-
E
o
o
?
:;
~,
0'
~
~
E
:::l
o
~
?
~
....\
'0
r.
,
13-
0-
E
Q)
;-
III
0'
c
;;.
~
n
B
o
7
;
~
;,
~
%
Q)
n
o
a
'e
Co
Q)
E
:::l
\,)
o
~
'j
w
~
<(
-l
m
w
o
0:::
Z
o
~
ST. S.
w
<.::>
910
~O:::
<(
o
z
w
>
<(
3rd ST.
2nd _ ST.
ST.
t+H
"
"
MAINSTREN
N.
st
"
z
ui
a
(f)<(
zO
-0:::
~(f)
Q..(/)
00
:Crt:
U
""
"" ,
~~"
~"" w
~41Ik~~ ~~ ~
~J"o~ 0 4."
~..f ~~."
..c ..c
-+-' ......
C'\l ..-
..-
..-
..c
-+-'
,......
..-
-++H+~
,
~
,
,
4th
~
LA.
BELMORE
z
o
l-
t?
Z
I
(f)
<(
3:
POTENTIAL LIGHT
RAIL ROUTE
AL TERNA TES
5th ST. S.
EXCELSIOR
AVE.
MALONEY
Figure ,
12
Project ,
2006032M
EXCELSIOR CROSSINGS - UPDATED AUAR
TRANSIT ROUTES
TRAILS AND
REGIONAL
ui
-0 I .
c w
N>
<(
(f)
I I I
-_.@---
----
LEGEND
BUS STOP
POTENTlAL LRT
BUS ROUTE
BIKE TRAIL
SIDEWALK
~ IWD~=
RLK. U'~=
( ............. "'.....,. ) Pbaae: 952 m 0lI'12
\...1 Pa: 952 Bum
'--"" "....ddac.am
6110 Blue 0a:Jc Ddve . SuIte 100 . ~... UN 55343
0>
~
"0
ci.
o
E
a.
o
1Il
C
~
o
,,/
o
co
I')
N
I
o
a::
(;)
co
,,/
0-
E
Q)
I-
,,/
(/)
0>
~
Q)
(J)
o
u
o
...J
,,/
c
'E
"0
<{
,,/
(/)
0>
~
Q)
(J)
"0
C
o
2
c
Q)
E
:J
U
o
o
,,/
U
E
o
co
N
o
ill
o
o
N
N
>
o
z
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
I
Appendix A
I
I
Updated AUAR Traffic Impact Study: Excelsior Crossings Office Development
RLK Inc.
April 06, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RLK Inc.
G:\City of Hopkins\2006-032-M"-.Technical Data\Traffic\repon\2006-11-14 Updated SiteIFinal TIS 11-27.doc
North Annex Site Updated AUAR
2006-032-M
I
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
(Available Upon Request)
Traffic Impact Study: Medica Corporate Office Building
URS BRW Inc.
June, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
November 27, 2006
RLK Inc.
G:\City ofHopkins''zOO6-032-M'_ Technical Dat3ITraffic\report\2006-1 1-14 Updated SiteIFinal TIS 11-27.doc
North Annex Site Updated AUAR
2006-032-M
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
I
I
Appendix C
I
I
SuperTarget Expansion Traffic Study
SRF Consulting Group
May 6, 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
November 27, 2006
RLK Inc.
G:\City of Hopkins-2006-032-M\ _Technical Data\Traffic\repon\2006- r 1-14 Updated SiteIFinal TIS 1 J -27.doc
North Annex Site Updated AUAR
2006-032-M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r:Jt~. CONSULTING
GROUP,
I N c.
Transportation.. Civil of Structural.. Environmental.. ,Planning.. Traf
rking
. ~. F ?~! 2 iJ 7.~e~ S ! ,Noo 0045059
1 ~': ~, .__ _ ._'" .. . ;~ECE IVrc= 0
1 ~ ~-:: -v:':'. :,;:',' : ;' ; . ~~. _'Of. -. ~
U ,..j '._-, ~-/ _-' LJ ...J -'- - ~
MEMORANDUM-----------------~.--..-MAY 1 2 2004
TO:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ST.lOUIS PARK, MN
Julie Grove, Associate Planner
CITY OF ST. LOUlS PARK
FROM: Carla Stueve~ P.E., Associate
Craig Vaughn, P.E., Senior 'Engineer
DATE: May 6, 2004
SUBJECf: SupERTARGETExpANSIONTRAFFIC STIJDY
Introduction
We have completed a traffic study for the remodeling of an existing Target store to a
Super Target, located in the northeast quadrant of Trunk Highway (TH) 169 and TII 7 in the City
of S1. Louis Park (see Figure 1: Project Location). The purpose of this study is to determine the
traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway system related to the proposed expansion. This traffic
study includes a p.m. peak hour operations analysis for existing and year 2006 build conditions.
Existing Conditions
To detennine how traffic is currently operating in the study area~ traffic operations for existing
conditions were analyzed at the following key in~ersections:
· 36th Street and Boone Avenue
· 36th Street and Aquila Avenue
· Aquila Avenue and North Knollwood Mall Access
Aquila Avenue and 37th Street
. 1H 7 and Aquila Avenue
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (763) 475-0010 + Fax (763) 475-24~9 + httD:/Iwww.srfconsultinf!.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
. , '
I ~ ~~.'J,~~"\- ~. l~~'~ ~~~ ~U~~
t r~~~Ob ,>,?L ~~ ~ ~:z ~ .
lit.. ~ ) 'L !l! ere ~ '5[. ~ ~ ~ 1E1t:~~ ~ ~
1--"-- I ~'pi I 'iC . ~ ~ ~ > ~
/p :>- w. '"'
~ifi 4( - ~ ~ ~ w - ~
ffi ~ ~ L...- ~ ~ --- . ~ :s ~ w. 30" ST. ~
~ ~ (i)e> ~ ~~~~w S 4( ~~
:/ ~ S ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0" ~ ~
.... r!
I ~~l ~ $f 81: ;J _ ~ '- w. ~ 32 nd ~
~ ~s I W
~ ' a:q-.~ m :1 w ni
~~ ~i~;:n~ ~'.d i '" ~ it w. ~ ~ 33Id ST.
a; ,..-~ ::! 1 ~ C!) . Mi ~ f1~ ~ ~ ~ C) ~ ~
Ot-: ~L0 :J: 19 ~ ~ al 34~" t: ~ z ~ ~ ;> :>
I ~CI) ~~ st. ~ =i ~ 0 0
~. /J~~::~ ClR.N. J 8l ~ ~ ~ w. ~341h ST.
~ %: ~ PROJECT j oj w ~ W.3kfS1: 35 th 81:
ws .~ ~ ~ LOCATION (~ . '< . . iii} iii M 6.~sr.N.VI.
~ ~ I~" 36 tb \.~ -o'-'U/4. . ~ ~ ~o ~I;c ~o ~ ._~ m ~ 7~UBUCAVE. \
IIL--J 'Y;<i.( ST. 1 ...... ciit- ~ '< ~ "a .;.-~. ~
=" TR '''~!U L l. ~ " ~ a: r:t
: DC1tI\NS~ ~ ~~ t~ ~~ '1 ,,~i ~ W-a 36th ~ ~ 81: ~ w 0 ~ s"{. L!-1
<< Yi CI UI ~ '\::!.... ~ :E;?i;t ~ !i S ""'
~.-fb.. o;:lie ~ 0: ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::> f/1 31f\n~ s~. ~ ~.u
"""~ ~l ~ (I) ((~ 3.. ~ ::> ::> UJ -~- ~.__ ~''-L :c 11::
!lis \ ~ \ @ 31\b m:~g ~ ~ ~ 'S.~
~~.~ ,,-ti S\.~.----... ~ K! 4(~.%
I-::: tt.~~) '~"" """ ,,,- " x ~ DMS1)N 51: ~ 0 .-
E wHXfil ~~J~:1 )'- ~-:- """ '''~~ - t CAM~ciGE ~ 81: 8 ~ '/ s-{. - ~
r- z~ -~.:--.. 5 :r. ~ ~ ~
~ J is ~~ ~ I. ~.~ OXFORD 8T.. v~~." ~~/-"'~ Q~ y
RD.W1.~ ~ jl2: 1if-1 & Z _ . Q ~; ~ ~
. AlE Q o~ ~ ~ . ~- p 0 ~ . ~
I Cir, RD~ ~ -, SHAO~SiOE lAI<E v 'I(~. ~ ~ . o'1f.o ( - L or
~, ~. t', 5..~ OAKPARKlA. · ~ ~(~~ ST. LOUlS~tOUlSlANALC\JR. ~;
15 j;f. ~ L Siifl_ 0 ~ ~ 7~ ~~~ · Ii
/to ~ ~ 2 z'-: ~ lA. ~ Z ~~~ ./ PARK cD !i
.. .jg~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :ri"< s~.. ~~ / ~ 2000 POP.. 44'11i6r ~
:1:'1 C( ~ << . ~ /' " '\ ..- 9.
~ J 1 2nd ~ ST. ~ N..E. w V"" . ""::I ...-::: .,
I~$ ~ I ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ @ ~ /' % _ ~ EXCEuIIoR-
~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~S'1. ~ H'llST.. D.. Y ~....;.: 8.~LA.
~ ~ ~- ct3~ l. 0:: -' ~" ""0 '';' o' fi' %: 0 0
. ~ ~~ a: ~ US sroN LA. . . \V "~ 9. MEADOWBROOKBU
~ ;:/ ~ ~ ii: 9\-~. d pRE ' . ~ ~ ~ 138. EXCB.SIOR WJ
~ ~ -1.0 ~G) ~ BOYCE ~ ~ ~ Sl: ,.
I'\~~ ctifl.:S ciO ~ ~ % M d~
I ~ S-{". ~ ~ 0 ~ r--- 0:: a: ! ::i ~ ~ ID / ~ ea OW
~ ~tP~ ~ 1st ST. 8. GO()OO ICH 8 9 :f 0 ~ 81: ~ /' La
.~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~>:~~~~P!~ ~ /
W . rr: . W t;;;:\ .... - us!-.c:r::l ~
1l!!J ~ z ~ ~ CI) ~ ~ :r; 6 0 !z ~ ~ /I
~ '<,~3nIst:_ :::E 2nd ~ S. '~0- "\."\."\. '0-..~" x",,, - "'I:\. ~" "\.,' ~ "\."\."\. "\."\."\.
I"'~~" . ~'- .~' ~ SPRUCE 0 ~ RD. '''~l..J~' ",-", ''\,,''tf'. ,,'\,"- ."" ~
~ Z III !: ~ 'C( Z ILl \ toE 3 . ~I B. >: MAlT ~ "
l~ ~ i~ ~B aJAoRE ~ ~ II) 0 10 ~ C!) lA. ~ lA ~
!2 ~ w. ~
29th
- C(
81:
~ ~
MlN ME TO NK A
o
m ~ 0
~ ~ ~ i 31 st
)! 5 .c( ~ 0
t~m~~~~
m 0 zw. i?32nd
32~ 0. cYJ"l. ~~ {jj 2
ST. 27.0AK ~ ~
UJ -
PARK .., w.
VILLAGE OR. >-i ~ Q ~ ~
~o '<2 ~
32. BROWNLOW ~ \ ~ ~
AVE.. . 9"~}. ~(..
OAK lEAf DR. ,.
CT. 0 'l- ~ ~ ~
'0' A ;-::.,
~. -~'~
~ 'h"'~
~ ..,~ ~~~-
i'"'-....~S1: . ~
_ /'1
""7"
~
(!)
BL
~
:r:
C/)
n.
~
ST.
~
C)
IX:
o
UI
C)
-!
I
SRF
PROJECT LOCATION
SUPERTARGET EXPANSION TRAFFIC STUDY
City of St. louis Park
R~CI;')!19l1e 1
MAY 1 2 Z004
c~~'
I 0045059
April 2004
COMMUNITY,DEVELOPMENT
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Julie Grove
- 3 - '
May 6~ 2004
Current traffic controls include side-street stop control at the intersection of Aquila
A venueINorth Knollwood Mall Access and signalization at the remaining key jntersections~
Peak hour turning movement counts were collected by' SRF Consulting Group in February and
April 2004 at all key intersections. Existing geometries? traffic controls and p.m~ peak hour
traffic volumes for the key intersections are shown in Figure 2.
A p.m. peak hour operations analysis \vas conducted for the key intersections to detennine how
traffic currently operates within the project area. Signalized intersections were analyzed using
the Synchro/SimTraffic software and the unsignalized intersection was analyzed using the
Highway Capacity Software. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which
indicates the quality of traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking
from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation~ with vehicles
experi€:llCing~~nimal delays. LOS F indicates an ~ntersection where demand exceeds capacity,
or a breakdown of traffic flow. LOS A through D are generally considered acceptable by
drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating at, or very near its capacity and that
vehicles experience substantial delays.
For the analysis of side-street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to
. providing an estimate for the level of service of the minor approach. The traffic operations at an
unsignaIized intersection with side-street stop control can be described in two ways. First,
consideration is given to tbe overall intersection level of service. This. takes into account tbe
total number of vehicles .entering the intersection an~ ~~e capability of the intersection to support
those voJu~es. Seco~d, it is important to consider the delay on tbe minor approach. . Since the
mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street apptoacbes~
Results of the analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that all key intersections currently operate at an
acceptable overall LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour, with existing traffic controls and
geometric layout. It is important to note that existing signal timing, obtained from tbe City of
St. Louis Park and MnlDOT, was used for the existing analysis of the signalized inte~tions.
Although all intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service, there is an existing
operational concern at the intersection of TH 7/Aquila Avenue. Based on p.m. peak. hour field
observations~ 22 right-turning vehicles from southbound Aquila Avenue to westbound m 7
missed the "free" right .turn located north of tbe intersection, and instead made the movement at
the traffic signal. Since a southbound right-turn movement is not expected at the signal, it can
create an unsafe situation for vehicles and pedestrians traveling through the intersection. During
the turning movement count? there was a close call between a bicyclist and a driver making the
southbound right turn at tbe signal. To prohibit this movement, the City should consider
requesting that MnlDOT install a "No Right-Turn" sign for southbound Aquila A venue at TH 7.
In addition, the existing sign located north of the "freen right should be modified to a ~arger Type
"D" Guide. Sign with a. green background and white lettering, stating "WEST TH 7n with a
diagonal arrow. ~is type of sign will draw 'more attention and reinforce t~at.it; ~s not a
conventional right turn. In addition, a "Double.Arrow~~ .W12-1 sign (standard. size 30~~ x 3(1')
should be placed'on the nose of the right-turn island to draw more attention to the turn~
.... ~
-~....."j
f1( 3i~t-' -.. ~~T. :51
Sfd
oj:)
"\ . ~/
.c:( /
~(f')N j..- ;98
~" .......-
.84
23~~ ~(
_No
CD 0
~
,.
.
g045059:
t>.OJl\ 2Q04
r1.)(f')(f') j..- 24
_-<1"-
)~ '\58
~63
49 J.,. ~~
198 .--.. _NcO
87~ tt)-r-CD
-
E)CISllNG p.M. pEAK HoUR lRAfFIC VOLUMES
su~G€T eP~ lAAFflc srot)'f
City ot Sl \..ou\s pat\(
\ &;\ .'
\ -z.. I
~\
0-
--" --r--
,
ST.
~'X ~'\\
?~
(j
\ .
Figure 2
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Julie Grove
-5-
May 6, 2004
Table 1
Existing P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
level of Service Results
Level of Service
P.M. Peak
36th StreetIBoone Avenue A
36th Street! Aquila Avenue A
Aquila A venuelNorth Kno)]wood Mall Access * AIB
Aquila Avenue/37th Street B
TH 7/ Aquila Avenue D
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS.
Intersection
Proposed Development
The existing Target store is located northeast of TII 169 and TII 7 in the City of St. Louis Park.
The store, constructed in 1961~ is one of the first Targets to be built. The facility is currently
133,438 square feet and is proposed to be remodeled and expanded into a Super Target with a
total square f90tage of 184~938. The site plan for the proposed Super Target is shown in Figure 3.
Traffic Forecasts
It is anticipated that the proposed expansion would take place.in year 2005. Traffic forecasts
were developed for year 2006. (one year after expansion). A one-percent yearly growth rate was
used to account for growth in background traffic. volumes~ based on a review of historical daily
traffic volumes in the area.
Table 2 sbows the trip generation estimates based on trip rates from the 2003 ITE Trip
Generation Reports for a 133,438 square-foot free-standing discount store and a 184,938 square-
foot free-standing discount, superstore. Typjcally~ trip generation estimates are based on this
information. However., w.hen available, specific development trip data is generally used to
estimate trips. In this case~ two sources of information. were provided: the Target Developer~ s
Guide and a year-long study of casb register transactions that was completed for a Super Target
in West Colonial, FL. Table 3 summarizes the trip estimates based on the Target Developer's
Guide. These trip estimates include a combination of studies from Target and are comparable to
the ITE trip rates. The trip estimates from the Florida SuperTarget study (not shown in table)
indicated approximately 6,000 daily trips (compared to 9~OOO in the Developer' s Guide) and 470
p.m. peak hour trips (810 in the Developer~s Guide). Since these trips are significantly lower
than the ITE trip rates and the developer's guide, and the study was conducted at one store with
no information provided for surrounding uses~ we did not use the data from this study to generate
trips. Based on the infonnati~n provided, the trip estimates fr<?m tbe Developer~ s Guide were
used since they are reasonable and comparable with ITE rates.
- - - -.-----------.
-
""lfii
l{l{ ul 'I
JII
t
f
(~I)i
z-II
fJll :
~~Ii II
till
rtf' "
m
~;
!j: :1ii
i i ~ : ~ ~ d
~! I,':: I;
~! i:.::;t
~:jC>"
~~g~~?
If,~~~:J.l:
t;,~S~'ll;;
~~eSl~~
!~r~
,,'"
p
0:!1fl
@)
@S
~
p
o
z
~
~
iiI
~
;;
~
C\.
is
~3 --=c
~'"
"
~~
~~I
~~
"''''Ii
~
ctti........".".,.fI1ofll'
GOPH~R S1 A IT ONU&
.",~ till.. ltoo 1.!'...,..COOl
v",. t.. '... ,...flOC""I..""
I~O,Oro !II'
l~
'10 \"UJ
ffi-iffiti
It) ShLU
~" ,
;'
'A.RCCT ~co..,o "DOIn~
UOQ(1 1[1:0"'0 IDDI"CtoI
(l'rC'1l. Usr 1'(""'1
'Yo n
SITE NOreS
~ClPfr:~(J. tJ~a\h "~~~ 0~l~':~I~~I~~.t~~~n'
nf( OOti~l..I:[wun 0' ,In: C.&O~C;. rUt .CON~'CJ'Oll'
""AU. ~ml,l.ft\v ~OTl"'" ~, tHa..n.. 0' tJ't"U'6wOC
O~ VA~"'11()"S rROv 'nt[ Il\J.I'lt
.....()I."t"'.'Cl"ISlJlt~'o"t(r.c:tl a !.HUt
Ol'Mrq....6( HOTJ'C.
'UIl,&HO ev\ttWSIO'tS "V!JI' '0 noI( ttJ'ltll r1
'lACt'" ""un 0""'('''''11 tiO'1:0.
~C'~ N\l 'SIlt t-Q' .....''l~ '11J~ UNUS\
O'\oft~...SI 'I0'f0.
.u. IIAM $.OloN.1. " ...G' Vt.t...tn
PUD REQUIREMENTS
.~yt~ c' COHOI"""",, TO"" ""O\o(t)
"~4/.. 'va P\..A\l,.
I, CUlt COA'ItLJ vnutc fWt "UlOUlD C'o'''-\.:I Y'I',
OJ.lIICO I~O ""'OSC""CD 1$I.,lJ(Q'I.
I. ltIonnllAIf COof...(c."'O"s ur "O~OtP. tv' \.t~ "
10 ru-r IJ,j llIIDT'W.
,. ~t 'UIl.'C IIIUJ' "' It CD'fSItlO(Q) "10M' 1IOt..",
1'lU .1(0' twC ""'WI" '\&lA.
%IllZlllG ll!It!II
.--............ ............--.
.. ... -. -... .~. .... -- .
-- - - .-....., .......
--
--
--
X I
IY'tJI\1OUS
.'''':OH
y
t
lI,jjr'(llfIOlJ'
P( oa>< I
U.U rc- G-'(
ON!......Ui..
"
or
.,
~ )
Jo'O
,,"
"UD ltf/l'olll 'u.ows rOil " f1(OUen~ rF lJ
ICOlJI',O .a","wa STAUS. PA'oposto ""'(I"
JTAt.U ~"'t.'(.N'S ,. .lCT)ucnO"f 0' 11,'~
,..'~cu,
'i'
,.
,.
lW't'''UjU1
~
'i'
'i'
COt.lSl1lucttn
/ PARKING C.A.I.ULATIONS
/ ~U'l;)7~u~~~UI.," \1[101.
1fflrl'
".~"'4 'r~ln.to.
1I[f"'\/Cl~~'\' ~uc
~
"va ...It.""" III'(OU("ClH.
VlIfIWW '''1I'11rI0 ItCV'Ir.n
--
'\111,,1)'''
wru.
~
~e
OIlJ
.~o
~
i
fl...~1ol0
~,:"
~
j
"ANCI(O
uno
~
~
'CDCSTlJUl ....', to I
c..OJDIl" or SlOC-'Ui'.
LEGEND
",",",uc
,.-"..
...-....
......
DWP""""",.
....-
-""
......."...,..
ZONING
\tOI.&. O(s,..,r~nQ":
OII'U.o lQHI""',:
"'UJlOSl.O t\l~.."
.'1"" ,ernir
~A(t ,utA.
~~NCl
~""om
."i1'imi.
"e-,r~r
.....,...
PI!O\IOtll
ifilfi
\ \.
'I'\~\
\ \ \"-
\ \
\ \
\
I
+
~;;
'LIQ1
uS(
ME
JlCTi,l'
\
SECTION A~A
\'
\
\
)
\
;'
\
""
"-
'\.,
\
I,or
/
I
I
I
I
)
/
/
--j
I IJ
I I
I /'1
I .!~
~
U
~L~
~rs
~..I_~
Fig ure 3
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SUPERTARGET EXPANSION TRAFFIC STUDY
City of St. Louis Park
0045059
April 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Julie Grove
- 7 -
May 6~ 2004
Table 2
Trip Generation Estimates
2003 ITE Trip Generation Reports
Land Use
P.lVl. Peak
In {)ut
351 365
337 338
14 27
Daily Trips
Free-Standing Discount Superstore
Free-Standing Discount Store
Difference
9,101
7~475
I ~626
Table 3
Trip Generation Estimates for Target Stores
Target-'Developer's Guide, Edition 2.4
Land Use
P.M. Peak
In Out
405 405
337 338 '
68 67
SuperTarget
Target
Difference
Daily Trips
9~OOO
7 ~500
1,500
.In addition to the trips that were ,gel)erated for the proposed SuperT~get, additional traffic was
included in the year 2006' build, conditions to account for ,chang~s 'that are planned in the
KnolIwood Mall. The 'year 2006 p.m. peak bour traffic forecasts include traffic from the
proposed relocation ofBally~s Total Fitness, which would occupy approximately 29~OOO square
feet in ,the KnolJwood Mall, and a proposed expansion of the eXisting T.J. Maxx store' (21,227
square feet) in the mall.
The directional trip distribution for the proposed site-generated trips is based on existing travel
patte~s in the area (see Figure 4: Directional Distribution). The combination of background
traffic and trips generated by the proposed Super Target and KnolIwood Mall expansions resulted
in the year 2006 build traffic forecast volumes shown in Figure 5.
Year 2006 Build Conditions
To determine how well tbe existing roadway system will accommodate year 2006 build
conditions, a p.m. peak hour operations analysis was conducted. Signalized intersections were
analyzed using the Synchro/SimTraffic software and the un signalized intersection was analyzed
using the Highway Capacity Software. As shown in Table 4, all key intersections are expected
to operate at an acceptable level of service under year 2006 build p.m. peak: hour conditions, with
existing geometries and traffic controls.
1M
I 0045059
Apnl2004
COHSUL'tINGGmur.1Nc
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
SUPERTARGET EXPANSION TRAFFIC STUDY
City of Stlouis Park
Figure 4
~\
~\
0-
....... ~
lAI~-..J
yv 3 -.- -'.. .J
. 1st ST.
0101.0 .i- 25
N~~
)~ '\85
i- ;20 ~ 85
101.010
~ ..--: ~'f
.- 95 50 J..
225~
25~~ ~( 90-'
0100
'ui
~
~
. $ ~ T(3ifiC Signa'
() '" sjde-SlJeet SlOP contrO'
0..
Figure ~
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
Julie Grove
-10 -
May 6~ 2004
Table 4
Year 2006 Build P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
Level of Service Results
Level of Service
P.M. Peak
36th StreetIBoone A venue A
36th Street! Aquila Avenue A
Aquila A venuelNorth Knollwood Mall Access * NB
Aquila Avenue/37th Street C
TH 7/Aquila Avenue D
* Indicates an unsignaJized intersection. The overall LOS is shown followed by tbe worst approach LOS.
Intersection
The intersection of TH 7/AquiJa Avenue was optimized under the build condition to
accommodate the increase in traffic volumes. Existing signal timing was used for the analysis of
all other signalized intersections. SRF Consulting Group will be completing a signal timing
study for the TII 7 corridor this summer. The limits of tbe study extend from TH 100 in the City
of St. Louis Park to TII 41 in the City of Shorewood. In coordination with this study, the
existing and future traffic volumes with the proposed redevelopment will be considered at the
intersection of TH 7/ Aquila A venue to dete~ne the optimum signal timing.
Although the results of the year 2006 build p.m. peak hour conditions show that all key
iriters~tions :will oPerate at an acc~ptable overall LOS D or better, ~ sensitivity analysis was
conducted for the intersection of TII 7/ Aquila Avenue. The sensitivity anaIy~is was completed
to. account for a suspected under-utilization of the existi'~g Target store. Th~ existing store was
bmlt in 1961, and was one of the fU'St Targets to be constructed. Due to the age of this store and
proximity to other Target stores in the area, we feel that the current Target store generates fewer
trips than a new Target store. Based on the Developer's Guide, a new Target store generates
7,500 daily trips. For analysis purposes, we assumed the existing Target store generates 20
percent fewer, or 6,000 daily trips. This assumption doubles the trips that would be generated
fpf the propQsed expansion to a Super Target. Based on tbis conservative analysis approach, the
intersection of 1H 7/ Aquila A venue will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D under year
2006 p.m. peak. hour conditions.
Site Plan Review
A review of the existing site access and internal roadway system was completed for the proposed
Super Target. Based on this review, it is recommended that a main drive aisle extended from
37th Street is provided for the entire segment. Currently, the site plan shows that the curb line
extends the full length of this drive aisle on the south side, but only extends half-way on the
north side. To prevent motorists tbat are entering the site from conflicting with drivers backing
out of those parking stalls, we suggest curb be placed along the entire length of the north side of
the drive aisle. Although this would require the elimination of 20 parking spaces, it would
provide safer and more efficient operations for vehicles entering and exiting the site.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Julie Grove
- 1 I -
May 6~ 2004
Another improvement that should be considered is modification of the existing parking on the
north end of the site plan, in front of the various retail stores north of Target. The site plan
shows a mix of 90-degree and angled parking. For consistency purposes, we recommend that the
parking be modified to provide all 90-degree parking. This will be less confusing to drivers as
they cixculate through the site.
Summary and Recommendations
The expansion of the existing Target store to a Super Target is proposed in the northeast corner of
TH 169 and TH 7 in the City of Sf. Louis Park. The existing store would be remodeled from
133,438 square feet to 184,938 square feet. Based on this traffic analysis, the following
conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration:
All key intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS p or better during the p.m.
peak. hour, with existing traffic controls, signal timing and geometric Jayout.
. Based on field observations of existing conditions, 22 right-turning vehicles from
southbound Aquila Avenue to westbound TII 7 missed the "free" right turn loc;lted north
of the intersection and instead made their turn at the signal. This movement may create
an unsafe condition for drivers and pedestrians traveling through this intersection, as.
observed during the tumi~g movement counts.. It is recommended that the City..request
MnlDOT to install a "No Right-Turn" sign for southbound Aquila Avenue at TH 7 to
prohibit drivers from making this turn at the .signal. In addition, the City should consider
replacing the existing sign stating "TO WEST 7" with a right arrow to a larger Type ''On
Guide Sign (green backgroUnd with white lettering) stating "WEST TII T' with a
diagonal arrow. This type of sign will draw more attention and reinforce that it is not a
conventional right turn. In addition, a "Double Arrow" W12-1 sign should be placed at
the nose of the right-turn island to draw more attention to the turn.
. Under year 2006 build conditions, all key intersections will continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS D or better during the p.m. peak bour, with existing geometrics and
traffic controls. Modification of the signal timing at the TH 1/ Aquila A venue intersection
should be considered for year 2006 build conditions to accommodate the proposed
redevelopment in the area. The increase in traffic volumes at this intersection will be
considered in tbe TH 7 corridor signal timing project that SRF Consulting Group will be
completing this summer.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. .. ~
Julie Grove
- 12-
May 6, 2004
Although the results of the year 2006 p-m. peak hOUT build conditions show that all key
intersections wi]] operate at an acceptable LOS D or better with the proposed expansion~
a sensitivity analysis was conducted for the intersection of TH 7/Aquila Avenue. The
analysis assumed tbat the existing Target Store is under-utilized, and experiences 20
fewer daily trips than indicated in the Developer:t s Guide. With tbis assumed reduction in
the existing trips from the site, the increase in trips between the existing Target and a
Super Target is approximately double of that shown in the Developer7 s Guide. With this
conservative approach:t the intersection of 1H 7/Aquila Avenue win continue to operate
at an acceptable LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour.
. Based on a review of the current traffic circulation of the proposed Super Target,
modification of the drive aisle extended from 37th Street is recommended for better on-
site circulation. To provide a main drive aisle for drivers entering/exiting the site, 20
parking spaces should be replaced with curb to provide a continuous curb line on the
north side of the main drive aisle. This will provide safer and more efficient operation
for vehicles entering/exiting the site. In addition, modification of the existing parking on
the north end of the site should be considered to eliminate the mix of" 90-degree and
angled parking.
I
I
I
Updated December AUAR Traffic Impact Study
November 27, 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix D
1. Memorandum to Steve Stadler and Jim Kerrigan, City of Hopkins
Re: Opus / SuperValu North Annex Redevelopment
RLK Incorporated
January 31, 2006
2. Email from Shannon Smith, City of Hopkins to John Dietrich, RLK
February 7,2006
RLK Inc.
G:\City of Hopkins'l006-032-M"Jechnical DataITraffic\report\2006-1 1- I 4 Updated SitelFinal TIS 11.27.doc
North Annex Site Updated AUAR
2006-032-M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
""
RI.K Engineering. Landscape Architecture · Planning · Surveying · Traffic
( INCORPORATED)
"'-...../
Creating extraordinary
Communities
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Steve Stadler, Public Works Director, City of Hopkins Em: sstadler@hopkinsmn.com
Jim Kerrigan, Economic Dev. Director, City of Hopkins Em: jkerrigan@hopkinsmn.com
COPY:
Rocky Rochenstein, Faegre & Benson
Dave Bangasser, OPUS Northwest LLC
Dave Menke, OPUS Northwest LLC
Michele Caron, PE
Em: wrockenstein@faegre.com
Em: dave.bangasser@opuscorp.com
Em: dave.menke@opuscorp.com
Em: mcaron@rlkinc.com
FROM:
Vem Swing, PE - Transportation
Em: vswing@rlldnc.com
DATE:
January 31,2006
RE:
OPUS I SUPERV ALU North Annex Redevelopment
Traffic Adjustment
RLK Incorporated Project No. 2006-032-M
As a follow up to the meeting with City Staff on the background and future redevelopments within the
vicinity of the North Annex property, RLK offers the following information on each of the sites and lor
redevelopments, and requests Staff concurrence.
· Block 64 (Mainstreet, First Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Sixth Avenue)
RLK has reviewed the SRF Traffic Study dated March 23, 2005. When the proposed 272-unit senior
housing I 8,800 square feet of commercial is compared to the existing traffic, the proposed
development is at or below current generation. RLK proposes no adjustment for Block 64 to provide
a conservative analysi~.
· Sixth to Eighth Avenues Cornerstone Proposal
The current property has vacant structures; hence, no existing generation; proposed use is:
53 condominium units,
9 townhome units,
4,500 square feet of new retail.
These above totals will be added to the background.
· Alliant Tech Property
RLK has contacted the Beard Group requesting a breakdown on the building and its percentage of
occupancy. Upon receiving a response, a memo to all will be prepared as to the status of the
property.
Offices: Hibbing · Minnetonka .. Hom lake .. Twin Ports
(952) 933-0972 .. 6110 Blue Circle Drive.. Suite 100 .. Minnetonko, MN 55343 . FAX (952) 933-1153
Equal Opportunity Employer
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OPUS / North Annex Redevelopment
Traffic Adjustment
January 31. 2006
Page 2 012
Hopkins Honda
Opened in Fall 2005 at the former Knox Lumber site. Included in background traffic, will there be
anticipated reuse of the fonner Hopkins Honda site?
· Regency and Parkside Residential on Second Avenue
Completed over the past year. Included in existing traffic; therefore, no adjustment to traffic count is
necessary.
· SUPERV ALU Warehouse Expansion
RLK contacted Bob King of SUPERV ALU and discussed any adjustments to the daily traffic, which
have been made. due to the expansion of the warehouse at 300 Second Street. The comments from
Bob King were:
No change to the general merchandise, frozen or dairy products. The dry grocery volume has
been split between the Bloomington store and the warehouse east of 169; however, the dry
grocery will be shifted back to Hopkins in Fall 2006 or Winter 2007.
Estimated an additional 60 semi-trucks would need to be added to the traffic background distributed
over a 24-hour day.
Estimated 225 employees would shift back to Hopkins, as well. The 225 employees are the total
number of employees for three equal shifts over a 24-hour, seven-day workweek. (225 divided
by 3 equals 75). RLK will add 75 vehicle trips to the daily background traffic.
· Target Knollwood Remodel to a SuperTarget
During the approval of the Knollwood Target, the City of St. Louis Park contracted SRF to perform a
traffic study~. The May 2004 report includes counts at the Highway 7 I Blake Road intersection. RLK
will utilize the 2004 counts and pro-rate the 2006 counts, if necessary. A SuperTarget has a daytime
peak hour of 7:00-8:00 p.m. and on the average (based on SRF study) generates an additional 1,500
vehicle trips per 24-hour period. The SRF report indicated an additional 135 trips would be generated
in the pm peak. Eighty percent of the trips to Target will flow through the Highway 7 / Blake Road
intersection. An additional 108 peak hour trips will be distributed to the intersection in the build
scenarios. A copy of the May 2004 SRF report is attached for reference.
· Hopkins School District Bus Depot
The Hopkins School District is proposing a bus garage on Seventh Street west of 11 th Avenue. The
project is not approved, but if it moves forward, up to 120 school buses will leave the site between
6 a.m. and 8 a.m. The majority will be out by. 7 a.m. The buses will return between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m.
The route is Seventh Street to 11 th Avenue to Excelsior Boulevard. The routes split three ways with
the eastbound to Highway 169, the heaviest movement. Highway 169 and Fifth Avenue will be the
north I south routes for distribution. RLK is awaiting a report by Benshoof to verify any increase in
bus trips at the Excelsior Boulevard I Highway 169 ramps. Upon receipt of Benshoof study, RLK
will prepare a memo to all suggesting modification to background conditions as appropriate.
· Transit Station - Blake Road I Excelsior Boulevard
RLK is requesting the City of Hopkins to provide an assessment of this project and the anticipated
year of development. RLK will not include a traffic growth factor on this site until the City defines
the parameters.
Enclosure:
SRF Traffic Study for SuperTarget Expansion dated May 6, 2004
O:\Opns Northwest LLC\2006-032-M\ _ Correspondence\Traffic Corres\Memo traffic adjustment Ol-31-06.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
From:
To:
Date:
Subj ct:
Shanoon Smith <ssmith@hopkinsmn.com>
"'Jdietrich@rlk-kuusisto.com'" <Jdietrich@rlk-kuusisto.com>
2/7/20069:10:35 AM
FROM JIM KERRIGAN, CITY OF HOPKINS
RE: FW: Opus/North Annex Redevelopment
Below are Jim Kerrigan's responses to your inquiry.
1. Town & Country Dodge JIM: Don't know yet; 4% acres.
2. Hopkins House condos JIM: 54 condos; 2006
3. Halley's 1 and 2nd JIM: 16 I, 2006; 14-16 II, start summer 2006
4. Oak Ridge Lofts/Condos JIM: 23 units, start 2006
5. Marketplace Lofts JIM: 53 condos, 9 townhomes, start 2006
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dietrich [mailto:Jdietrich@rlk-kuusisto.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1 :49 PM
To: jkerrigan@hopkinsmn.com
Cc: wrockenstein@faegre.com; dave.bangasser@opuscorp.com; Michele Caron;
Vernon Swing
Subject: Opus/North Annex Redevelopment
Jim,
Last Thursday RLK sent to you and Steve Stadler a memo on the projects
which were on the top of your list as having a redevelopment potential.
There are a couple of more projects which we do not have information on
and I would like your assessment as to whether or not we need to look at
them as adjustments for the background traffic data.
Pis respond with your assessment ( number of units/ amount of Sq. Ft./
year of completion) on the following;
1. Town and County Dodge Redevelopment Hwy. 7 and 73
2. Hopkins House Condos Hwy 7 and 73
3. Halley's 1 and 2nd. Hwy 7
4. Oak Ridge Lofts! Condos Hwy. 73 and 5th S1. N
5. Marketplace lofts 7th and Mainstreet.
Thanks John
John Dietrich, ASLA
RLK Incorporated
Phone 952-933-0972
Fax 952-933-1153
jdietrich@rlkinc.com
All RLK Incorporated staff should be aware that all e-mail messages and
attachments are
being scanned for viruses and content.