HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 01-17-2017 Special
Joint Council/EDA Meeting 1 of 1 January 17, 2017
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
AGENDA
JOINT COUNCIL/EDA MEETING
JANUARY 17, 2017, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
(Joint City Council/EDA Meetings are comprised of the same members and allow either the
City Council or EDA to act on items. Items needing action by a specific body are noted below)
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVE AGENDA
4. CONSENT AGENDA
4.01 Approve January 3, 2017 EDA Minutes (EDA Action Item)
5. GENERAL BUSINESS
5.01 Consider Rezoning, PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat for redevelopment
of the Four Seasons Mall site (Agora – 2016075) (Council Action Item)
5.02 Agora Development Agreement Discussion
6. OTHER TOPICS
7. ADJOURN
Proposed Minutes 1 of 2 Council/EDA Meeting of January 3, 2017
Proposed Minutes
Joint Council/EDA Meeting
January 3, 2017
Mayor Slavik called a joint Council/ Economic Development Authority Meeting to order at 5:30
p.m. in the Medicine Lake Room, on January 3, 2017.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Slavik, Councilmembers Davis, Prom, Wosje, Willis, and Carroll.
ABSENT: Councilmember Johnson.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Callister, Community Development Director Juetten,
Administrative Services Director Fischer, Park and Recreation Director Evans, Public Works
Director Cote, Economic Development Manager Parr, Housing Manager Barnes, Planning
Manager Thomson, Senior Planner Drill, and Office Support Representative Gottschalk.
OTHERS PRESENT: Rock Hill Management Group Representative Apurva Patel, KW
Commercial Representative Lowell Lankford, Best and Flanagan Tax Attorney Dan Nelson,
Midwest Management Representative Mike Pagh, and Walmart Representative Kevin Brink.
Consent Agenda
Motion was made by Councilmember Willis , and seconded by Councilmember Prom, to approve
the Consent Agenda that included the following item:
(4.01) Minutes from EDA meeting held on December 13, 2016.
With all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
General Business
(5.01) Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment
(Agora Project)
Senior Planner Drill presented the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this site. He noted
the size and components of the development, and the traffic study.
Discussion was held regarding the location of the permeable pavers and the longevity of the
pavers and peak hours listed on the traffic study. It was noted that there were no regulatory issues
given to staff regarding this project.
4.01
Page 1
Proposed Minutes 2 of 2 Council/EDA Meeting of January 3, 2017
Motion was made by Councilmember Wosje, and seconded by Councilmember Prom, to adopt a
Resolution Finding of “No Need” for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Based Upon
Review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Four Seasons Mall
Redevelopment Project (2016086 – Res2017-001). With all members voting in favor, the motion
carried.
(5.02) Agora Senior Housing and Affordable Housing Options
Considerable amount of discussion was held regarding senior housing and affordable housing
options for this proposed development. The Council suggested a feasibility study on senior
housing and affordable housing needs in the community. Community Development Director
Juetten offered bringing the suggestion of a feasibility study to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. The Council suggested this topic be discussed at a future study session.
Mike Pagh, representing Midwest Management, stated that affordable housing wouldn’t be
suitable for this development.
(5.03) Lodging Tax
Economic Development Manager Parr provided a brief presentation on imposing a lodging tax.
She discussed the State Statute requirements regarding the tax and stated the City has looked at
other cities who already have the tax in place. She noted the increase in tourism with the City
and discussed the opportunity to gain income from tourism.
She stated there are two options: 1) Impose a 3% lodging as allowed by State Law for the
purpose of promoting tourism for the City or 2) Work with the City’s legislative delegation to
request special legislation that may allow for other additional areas to support a broader use of
the tax revenue and have the EDA oversee the utilization of the funds. The Council stated they
support proposing new legislation and include this item on the 2017 legislative priority list. The
Council suggested staff contact hotels to discuss this tax.
Other Topics
No other topics were discussed.
Adjournment
Mayor Slavik adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Amy Gottschalk, Office Support Representative
Page 2
JOINT
COUNCIL/EDA
MEETING
January 17, 2017
Review Deadline:
May 3, 2017
Agenda
Number: 5.01
To: Dave Callister, City Manager
Prepared by: Barbara Thomson, Planning Manager and Shawn Drill, Senior
Planner
Reviewed by: Steve Juetten, Community Development Director
Item: Consider Rezoning, PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat for
Redevelopment of the Four Seasons Mall Site (2016075)
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the attached ordinance and resolutions approving a rezoning, PUD general plan and preliminary
plat, as recommended by the Planning Commission, as well as a resolution approving summary
publication of the ordinance.
Approval requires a 4/7 vote of the City Council.
2. BACKGROUND:
On January 4, 2017, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application and subsequently voted
unanimously to recommend approval. In addition to commission questions and comments, seven
members of the developer’s team requested to speak and five members of the public requested to
speak. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes and report is attached. Notice of the Planning
Commission’s public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 750 feet of the site.
The Planning Commission received clarification from staff about the following: 1) PUD flexibility is
allowed in return for a higher level in project design and gives the City greater control in ultimate project
outcome; 2) access to the mall site will be from the two existing access drives plus one additional (right-
in/right-out only) access drive near the proposed office building, which will help distribute traffic on the
site; 3) the right-of-way vacation would be just south of the proposed Aloft building and will be
considered by the City Council on January 24, 2017; 4) the parking ramp is not being designed to support
more than three levels; 5) the decision about city ownership of the ramp will be tied to TIF discussions
that are underway; and 6) when the Four Seasons Mall was developed, there were no requirements for
treatment of runoff but the proposed development would be required to meet current standards.
The commission raised a concern about the sufficiency of parking on the site. Staff responded that
parking has been a major staff focus and that staff has worked with the developer on this issue. As a
result, the developer has eliminated some high traffic-generating uses from the site plus, given the
differing peak demand times for many of the proposed uses, staff is comfortable with the amount of
parking on the site. The commission raised a related question about daily trips to the site. Staff
indicated that daily trips would likely not be much higher than they were when Four Seasons was at full
occupancy. The commission questioned the appropriateness of a park-and-ride in the middle of the
development. Staff reviewed the history of park-and-ride on the site, noting that after the former park-
and-ride site was moved to the north side of Cub Foods, many users continue to park there informally as
the bus still stops there. Staff stated that the Guiding Principles call for a park-and-ride presence in any
Page 1
redevelopment option for the site. (In 2011, the City completed a redevelopment study for the mall site,
the outcome of which was a set of Guiding Principles meant to be used to review future redevelopment
of the site. The study was not intended to establish a redevelopment plan or fixed set of uses.) The
Guiding Principles also address architecture, which the commission likewise questioned. Staff noted
that the Guiding Principles call for architecture that is consistent throughout, complimentary, timeless,
scaled to the pedestrian and for the most part four-sided. Staff also pointed out that the proposed
buildings will receive additional administrative review and approval with each application for a PUD final
plan. The commission raised a concern about the reduced setback for the senior building, questioning
whether there would be sufficient room to provide additional landscaping. Staff responded that they
would work with the developer to install appropriate landscaping in this area (more columnar variety
trees) to ensure the necessary screening for the adjacent townhomes. The commission also raised a
concern that the PUD ordinance excluded “offices/clinics for medical, dental or chiropractic services.”
Staff responded that they were excluded, based on their higher parking requirements. Based on
direction from the commission, staff amended the ordinance exclusion to state that
medical/dental/chiropractic offices could be allowable, provided that documentation demonstrates
sufficient parking would be available.
Members of the public raised questions about the height of buildings and the height of signs. Staff
responded that proposed sign heights do not exceed ordinance standards and that with the exception of
the senior building, higher building heights occur along County Road 9 and Highway 169 away from
residential uses. Staff noted that the applicant is proposing to mitigate the height of the senior building
by stepping back the fifth floor and by using architectural elements that help give the sense of a three
story building along Lancaster Lane. A representative of the applicant stated that the distance between
the building and the closest residence is 130 feet. Staff also noted that the applicant would be preparing
a separate sign plan for the entire project that would be reviewed and approved at a later date. Staff
continues to have concerns about the proposed pylon sign near Lancaster Lane as it would be visible
from some of the existing single-family homes and therefore neither staff nor the Planning Commission
supports approval of this sign.
Neighbors raised concerns about noise and light pollution. Staff responded that both of these are
concerns of the City as well. Staff noted that the project would need to conform to existing noise
standards. However, staff is of the opinion that the existing noise from the adjacent highways will
exceed noise anticipated after construction is complete for a commercial development of this type and
magnitude. Staff stated that the project would also need to conform to existing lighting requirements,
emphasizing that the City has some of the most stringent lighting regulations in the region, particularly
with respect to backlight, up-light and glare.
Neighbors raised concerns about snow storage on the site. A representative for the developer pointed
out locations on site where snow storage could occur. Staff noted that as is the case in other
developments of this size, it would not be unusual for some snow to be trucked off-site.
Neighbors also raised concerns about the potential for criminal activity, notably prostitution, at the two
proposed hotels. Staff responded that the City is diligent about ensuring this type of activity is not
allowed to occur. Staff notes that the rates associated with the proposed hotels would in and of
themselves diminish the potential for possible criminal activity of this nature.
Page 2
3. BUDGET IMPACT:
Not applicable.
4. ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Report with Attachments
Ordinance
Resolutions
Page 3
Proposed Minutes 1 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Proposed Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Gary Goldetsky,
Donovan Saba, Jim Kovach, Julie Witt, David Witte and Bryan Oakley
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barb Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill and Planner
Kip Berglund, Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Public Works Director Doran
Cote
OTHERS PRESENT: Council Member Ned Carroll
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ROCK HILL MANAGEMENT, LLC. (2016075)
Acting Chair Anderson introduced the request by Rock Hill Management, LLC for a rezoning,
PUD general plan and preliminary plat for a redevelopment of the Four Seasons Mall site to be
called “Agora” for property located at 4200 Lancaster Lane.
Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report.
Acting Chair Anderson commended staff for the excellent job they did pulling together
everything for this large application. He stated that PUD flexibility is being requested and asked
for clarity about what that means. He stated that the site is zoned C-2 and noted that if this plan
is laid in that zoning district, a number of variances would be required whereas under a PUD the
variances would not be required.
Senior Planner Drill stated that because the property is zoned C-2, the C-2 regulations are used
as a guide and while the PUD provides more flexibility, it also requires higher levels of design
and provides the City more regulatory control.
Commissioner Witte asked for information on the site access.
Senior Planner Drill stated that there are two existing access points along Lancaster Lane, which
would remain, and one access point would be added. He noted that the new access point would
be a right in/right out.
Commissioner Witte asked for clarification on the parking that will be provided and whether
there would be space for additional parking.
Page 4
Proposed Minutes 2 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Senior Planner Drill replied that the developer has stated that there would be opportunity to add
some scattered parking in addition to what is shown on the plans. He said that the design of the
ramp would not support an additional level of parking. He stated that quite a bit of time was
spent with the developer on the parking study to ensure that staff was comfortable with the plan.
He noted that the original plans included more square footage and additional buildings, and that
was scaled back to provide more parking area. He stated that there is a unique mix of uses with
different peak parking times, and therefore staff feels comfortable with the parking as proposed.
Planning Manager Thomson added that staff was also concerned as there are no off-site parking
options. She stated that staff would not have brought the application forward for approval if they
were not comfortable with the parking as proposed.
Senior Planner Drill noted that the senior housing will be fairly self-contained and advised that
some of the residents in the building will not be driving. He reviewed the different peak times
for the retail uses, the office space and the hotels.
Commissioner Witte asked where the vacation of right-of-way would occur.
Senior Planner Drill identified the area south of the Aloft hotel and noted that the vacation
request will go before the City Council in a separate public hearing.
Commissioner Witte asked for the location of Outlot A, as he believed that is where the city
pump house is.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the City’s pump house is located on proposed Outlot A ,where
an easement currently exists, but the developer plans to dedicate that parcel to the City.
Commissioner Witte referenced the statement in the staff report that the parking ramp may be
owned and operated by the City and asked if that is definite or just a possibility.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the ownership question is tied to the tax increment financing,
which the council has not yet acted on. He noted that if the council does decide in favor of
owning the ramp, the City would want the ramp on its own separate lot.
Commissioner Oakley referenced the traffic study that provided the number of daily trips that
would be generated and compared that to a Walmart development that was never proposed. He
asked how the proposed daily trips would compare to the existing use and how many trips the
Four Seasons Mall had.
Community Development Director Juetten replied that a fully occupied Four Seasons Mall
would generate about 5,051 daily trips. He stated that the traffic study was done with the
original development plans and had a daily trip estimate of 6,800. He noted that some of those
uses have since been decreased in size or eliminated, and therefore the number of daily trips
could fall between 5,600 to 5,800.
Commissioner Oakley stated that the majority of the setbacks do not concern him as they are
setbacks from existing highways. He asked the width of the setback by the senior building.
Page 5
Proposed Minutes 3 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Senior Planner Drill replied that typically there is 15 to 20 feet of boulevard space to the back of
the curb.
Commissioner Oakley stated that it would be difficult to place trees and screening materials in
that setback area.
Senior Planner Drill stated that staff is also concerned with that and will continue to work with
the developer to find the right type of trees that would fit well in that space and also provide an
appropriate amount of screening.
Commissioner Witte asked for additional information on the drive aisle widths.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the primary drive aisles would be 26 feet in width while the
majority of the drive aisles would be 24 feet in width. He noted that other PUDs have similar
drive aisle widths, such as the Lowe’s PUD.
Acting Chair Anderson noted that the report states that the impervious surface will be reduced
from 78 percent to 72 percent. He received confirmation that the stormwater elements for the
site would also be brought up to current standards, as there were no stormwater requirements
when the original Four Seasons Mall was constructed. He asked for the history regarding the
park-and-ride.
Senior Planner Drill replied that there was a park-and-ride facility on this site about five to ten
years ago. He stated that because there is bus service on Lancaster Lane, people do still park at
this site to take the bus. He identified the location of the official park-and-ride facility as the
north side of the Cub Foods on the north side of County Road 9. He stated that the Guiding
Principles provide that a park-and-ride facility be brought back to the site as part of any
redevelopment.
Acting Chair Anderson referenced the suggested change in materials proposed by staff regarding
the Aloft hotel and asked for more details.
Senior Planner Drill stated that the developer will speak about this issue. He stated that staff’s
concern is that the building is very modern and while it may look great now, it could look dated
in as little as ten years. He stated that a bigger concern is that the colors, materials, and design of
the building do not match the other buildings on the site. He stated that staff does not want all
the buildings to look exactly the same but would like to see the development tied together in a
unified manner.
Acting Chair Anderson stated that based on the comments of Community Development Director
Juetten, the estimated number of daily trips would not be much more than the trips associated
with the original Four Seasons Mall.
Senior Planner Drill reiterated that the traffic study was completed when the development plans
included additional uses that have since been removed from this plan.
Page 6
Proposed Minutes 4 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Commissioner Oakley asked for clarification on a design-related condition to limit the repeated
use of horizontal elements in the retail buildings.
Planning Manager Thomson replied that there are a lot of narrow horizontal add-on elements that
seemed to be a little overdone and could become dated, and therefore staff is suggesting that
those be reduced.
Acting Chair Anderson introduced Lowell Langford, representing the applicant, who stated that
he has been a resident of Plymouth for the past 16 years and three of his children live in
Plymouth. He reviewed the timeline thus far, noting that the process began January 22, 2016
with their negotiations with Walmart and highlighted dates when the purchase agreement was
signed, when an information meeting took place with the City Council and when the
neighborhood meeting took place. He stated that there are really two projects, the first being the
building of Agora and the second relating to the condition of the soil and stormwater aspects and
all the work required to appropriately address these matters.
Steve Gebauer, Solution Blue, stated that this project is taking on a big piece in the bigger
watershed. He highlighted and provided brief details on the stormwater elements proposed for
the site including filtration basins, the wetland walk, plants that will help to reduce phosphorus,
the stormwater management pond, and iron enhanced benches. He stated that this is a large
system with many components. He stated that the watershed would like to have 100 pounds of
phosphorus removed through this project and other projects in Plymouth, before runoff reaches
Northwood Lake in New Hope. He stated that according to their calculations, they will be able
to remove 110 pounds of phosphorus through this project and therefore are going above and
beyond the requirements for the site alone.
Commissioner Witt asked for details on the wetland walk.
Mr. Gebauer replied that the wetland walk will be in the center of the site. He said he hopes that
educational banners and signs can also be provided throughout the site in conjunction with
working with the watershed. He identified the locations of the primary components of the
stormwater management.
Acting Chair Anderson received confirmation that the phosphorus removal calculation is on an
annual basis. He stated that the drawing shows a wetland creek that flows through the site and
asked for details.
Mr. Gebauer stated that there will be a mix of water and plants throughout the creek. He stated
that the plants will be harvested annually to aid in phosphorus removal.
Gretchen Camp, ESG Architects, stated that they are excited to be a part of this project, turning a
vacant strip mall into a vibrant center. She stated that they do not have a problem with the
condition staff recommended regarding the ribbed paneling. She stated that it will not be a
problem to change the building colors either. She stated that therefore they do not have any
problems with the conditions recommended by staff regarding the architecture. She stated that
the owner would like a contemporary feel to the project versus a traditional, generic feel. She
stated that they would prefer to have the ability to use the horizontal elements.
Page 7
Proposed Minutes 5 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Art Bartele, ESG Architects, stated that they are also looking for a harmonious balance for the
site and noted that the original designs tended to use brighter colors. He referenced the
allowable uses and identified the uses that were originally included. He stated that the owner
would like flexibility for the retail elements as the leasing moves forward. He stated that they do
have experience with mixed use developments and the scale of parking required. He stated that
they have learned through their experience with this type of development that one thing the
development needs is to stay full and that is why they are asking for flexibility.
Ms. Camp stated that under the resolution there is a list of allowable uses that is very specific,
and they would like to allow for a staff process that would allow for changes in use.
Planning Manager Thomson noted that all the uses within the C-2 zoning district would be
allowed, in addition to the specific uses listed.
Ms. Camp noted that medical office was not allowed.
Planning Manager Thomson explained that medical uses typically have a higher demand for
parking, and that is why they are excluded.
Acting Chair Anderson stated that there is some flexibility allowed under a PUD. He noted that
this is the preliminary plat stage, and there is another step with final plat, which would allow
flexibility and discussion. He stated that if staff feels a request is beyond what is allowed
through the PUD, it would come back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bartele referenced the shared parking and asked if there were any questions, noting that there
is good history of shared parking in their other developments.
Commissioner Witt referenced Townplace Suites, which has room for conventions and asked
how big the space is for meetings and gatherings.
Ms. Camp stated that there would be 8,000 square feet for gatherings within the hotel, noting that
often people that attend a wedding stay at the hotel as well.
Commissioner Witt stated that her perception is that they are attempting to fit in a lot of things on
the site and trying to squeeze in the parking. She stated that she sees the developer as trying to fit
too much into too small an area. She asked if there is a developer for the senior building.
Mr. Langford responded that there is a developer for the senior project, noting that the developer
would be purchasing the land for their project.
Mr. Bartele stated that there is a good balance of complimentary uses that will utilize parking at
different times of the day when the need for parking by other uses is diminished.
Ms. Camp stated that currently the resolution states that monument and wall signage is not
allowed for the senior building, and they simply want to ensure that some type of signage is
allowed for this building.
Page 8
Proposed Minutes 6 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Mr. Bartele stated that this is a nice mix of public and private uses.
Terese Reiling-Holden, Welsh Colliers, referenced the medical use restriction and reminded the
commission that many medical uses are now finding retail spaces as great locations. She noted
that there are a number of dermatology and dental clinics that prefer retail settings, and they do
not require a lot of parking. She stated that they are a great service to the neighborhood and
complimentary to retail and asked that the commission consider allowing those uses. She stated
that she was involved in attempting to lease the Four Seasons Mall, unsuccessfully, and is
excited to be a part of this project. She said she thought it would be important for the site to have
a sign at the entrance near Rockford Road. She stated that most retail developments have
storefront visibility on the street, and explained that the thin strip along Rockford Road will not
support retail and therefore those elements must be more internal to the site. She stated that
based on her experience, she has not had success with retail internal to a site without having
compensation, such as signage, for not having visibility from a major roadway, in this instance,
Rockford Road. She stated that with all the investment in this project, the signage is an
important component for the retail to be successful. She stated that most of the customers for the
retail will come from the neighborhood and traffic along Rockford Road.
Acting Chair Anderson stated that if he was driving by the site and saw the sign being proposed
while driving on Rockford Road, he would have already passed the turnoff. He asked why the
signage is not proposed for the intersection of Lancaster Lane and Rockford Road.
Ms. Camp stated that the signs are required to be on the subject property and set back ten feet.
She stated that they are not allowed to place the sign on someone else’s property. She provided
details on the proposed sign and stated that they are willing to work with staff but feel it is
important to have the third sign too.
Ms. Reiling-Holden stated that retailers look at visibility, signage, access, and demographic
requirements. She stated that the sign would allow her to address the visibility element with
retailers and felt confident that the sign would be a good compromise and would allow her to
gain quality tenants.
Commissioner Saba asked and received confirmation that the sign would have Agora at the top
and then smaller panels listing the individual tenants.
Commissioner Kovach agreed that you would want people to see the development. He noted
that there are multiple signs proposed for the frontage near the highway and highway ramp and
stated that perhaps one of those signs could be eliminated to allow for the sign closer to the
entrance to the development. He commented that it is redundant to have two signs along the
highway.
Ms. Reiling-Holden stated that while it may seem redundant, the two signs face in different ways
and the two signs help to address the entrance ramp and the Highway 169 traffic.
Page 9
Proposed Minutes 7 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Commissioner Kovach stated that one of the signs is placed too late to allow traffic to see it in
time and therefore felt that the one sign along the highway would be sufficient along with the
sign near the entrance.
Ms. Reiling-Holden stated that there are a lot of tenants in the development and therefore the two
highway signs would allow for adequate space to advertise for all the tenants. She noted that
some tenants may not have good visibility and therefore if she can offer them space on the sign,
that will assist in leasing.
Ms. Camp stated that she wanted to ensure that the language included in condition 14 about no
outside storage of goods would not exclude a farmer’s market.
Lance Schuer, Damon Farber, referenced condition 23.c.3. regarding native plantings not being
allowed in basins and ponds and asked for clarification.
Before opening the public hearing, Acting Chair Anderson asked for clarification on medical
uses.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that the commission can certainly alter what staff has
recommended in regard to medical uses and stated that if they choose to do that, she would want
to ensure that limits are placed to ensure that medical uses do not overstress the parking.
Acting Chair Anderson asked if the applicant would come back with a sign package to be
approved. He stated that typically not every tenant is allowed signage on a pylon.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that the sign package would come forward separately. She
noted that sometimes an administrative review is done but other times it would go through the
whole process including the Planning Commission.
Acting Chair Anderson asked if the farmer’s market would be allowed.
Planning Manager Thomson replied that farmer’s markets can be reviewed administratively, but
that matter can be further addressed prior to the City Council meeting.
Public Works Director Cote stated that the intent of the language regarding plantings is that the
native plantings would not be allowed in the basins themselves but could be allowed around the
basins. He stated that he could review that matter further before this item goes to the City
Council.
Acting Chair Anderson explained that typically plantings are not allowed because they take up
capacity in the basin but recognized that in this case the plants are part of the process. He stated
that the City does not know enough at this time to make that decision as input is being provided
by the watershed as well.
Public Works Director Cote replied that the details would be determined prior to the City Council
meeting.
Page 10
Proposed Minutes 8 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Acting Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Acting Chair Anderson introduced Jody Shands, 10800 40th Avenue, who stated that she does
like the redevelopment of the Four Seasons Mall. She stated that she does have concern that the
aesthetic will not match the surrounding development as some of the buildings are much larger
than the one story commercial development in this area. She stated that this was supposed to be
a community gathering area but she was not clear where that space would be other than the
wetland walk. She asked what would be allowed regarding signage, specifically in terms of light
pollution. She asked if the tenants would be allowed to have signage on the back of the
buildings, similar to what the Four Seasons Mall had. She noted that she would enjoy a coffee
shop. She noted that there are already quite a few dental offices in the area, and therefore that
use would not be needed. She noted that one of the hotels would be along Rockford Road and
therefore perhaps would not need to have a space on the pylon sign. She asked what would be
allowed under the PUD in the future in terms of large businesses.
Mike Pagh, Lancaster Lane Senior Housing LLC, stated that they will be purchasing the senior
housing site and wanted to speak in support of the development and are excited to be a part of it.
He stated that currently there is no signage allocated to the senior housing development. He
noted that they do not need signage on the building but they would request a 60-square foot
monument sign to identify the building. He stated that the building will be run solely by a non-
profit that currently has facilities in Hopkins and Minnetonka. He stated that they will be good
neighbors and are good citizens and community members. He stated that this is a well thought
out and planned development. He stated that it is unlikely that they would be able to get their
construction underway in May as they were a little late to the game, but noted that they would
begin construction later in 2017.
Acting Chair Anderson introduced Ken Weiland, 9910 41st Avenue, who stated that they are
concerned with noise pollution as the neighborhood is already loud from the traffic in the area.
He asked if the City has considered putting a barrier wall around the curve of Lancaster Lane.
He stated that he also has concern with light pollution from the traffic, four story buildings and
lit signs. He stated that in his neighborhood there is a lot of water that pools in the backyards
and wanted to ensure that the runoff from the site would not travel north. He asked why two,
four-story hotels would have to be included on the site.
Acting Chair Anderson introduced Robert Ostvig, 4300 Trenton Lane #312, who stated that he is
a member of the Trenton Place condominium association. He referenced criminal activity that
could occur at a hotel and stated that the association shared that concern. He stated that an
association member stated there were water problems in the foundation of the Four Seasons Mall
and wanted to ensure that the problem will have been resolved if that original foundation is going
to be used. He referenced the traffic at the intersection of 42nd and Nathan Lane, noting that
previously it had been stated that there would not be an increase in congestion and asked if that
has been verified by an independent source. He stated that there seems to be a tremendous
amount of commerce in a small area and asked if there would be enough parking. He stated that
perhaps the parking ramp could be designed in a way to allow an additional story to be added.
He stated that there does not seem to be sufficient space for snowplowing. He asked if a walking
bridge would be constructed to allow people to walk over to the businesses north of County Road
9. He stated that he is a critic of farmer’s markets and is a regular customer of Cub Foods. He
Page 11
Proposed Minutes 9 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
stated that there has been a significant drop in business for Cub Foods already with the
competition from Hy-Vee and was concerned that a farmer’s market would bring additional
competition. He stated that in times of crisis, there needs to be a local supply of food.
Acting Chair Anderson introduced David Burke, 4220 Nathan Lane, who thanked the
commission for their service to the community. He stated that he is not against the proposed
development but does wonder about having hotels in the neighborhood. He stated that
prostitution is found in hotels. He stated that there is mention of a restaurant, and he said he
would want to see something other than fast food.
Acting Chair Anderson introduced Roger Connolly, 4225 Nathan Lane, who stated that he agrees
with the comments from the previous speakers, noting that hotels are not a good fit for the
environment of the city and the neighborhood. He stated that the City did some type of planning
to determine a good use of the area, and he did not believe hotels were included. He stated that a
four-story building is a four-story building, and he didn’t know how you could make it look like
a three-story building. He said he had a concern with the time of day that traffic would be
moving through the area, as truck traffic could occur before 7:00 a.m. and past 7:00 p.m. He
noted that weekends are a quiet time in their neighborhood, and now there will be a lot of
activity with this development. He stated that signage is a huge concern for the neighborhood
for their visibility. He asked that lighting be well thought out to ensure that it does not cause
light pollution for the neighborhood. He asked if there would be a liquor license for the
restaurant and the hours of operation. He stated that the hotels and hours of operations and
activity do not seem to fit well within the neighborhood.
Ms. Shands stated that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic that goes down Lancaster Lane across
Rockford Road to the Cub Foods area and asked if there would be a continuous sidewalk for that
activity.
Acting Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that three-story buildings would be allowed in the C-2 zoning
district and noted that the applicant’s proposed signs are within the allowable height.
Mr. Bartele stated that this is a very busy highway-oriented intersection on the north and east and
the four-story buildings are closest to the highway and Rockford Road and therefore set back
furthest from the neighborhood. He noted that the senior building has architectural details to
break up the building bulk and is set back 130 feet from the closest residential dwellings across
Lancaster Lane.
Ms. Camp noted that there are apartment buildings adjacent to the senior building, which are
three plus stories in height.
Mr. Bartele stated that there is a fair amount of space in the middle of the development that will
be used to showcase the water treatment the site is providing for the larger area, and there is a
potential on slower days to setup activities such as a farmer’s market that can be used for
community gathering. He noted currently that space is just surface parking in a vacant
development.
Page 12
Proposed Minutes 10 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Planning Manager Thomson asked if there would be small signs on the back of the buildings.
Mr. Bartele replied that there would be one or two that would be included in the sign package.
Planning Manager Thomson asked if the Aloft Hotel has one or two signs.
Ms. Camp stated that the signs would be on the north and east sides of the building, facing away
from the neighborhood.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that Plymouth has very stringent lighting regulations and will
ensure that the lights on the property meet all the requirements of the City.
Mr. Bartele stated that they kept the level of the parking ramp as proposed to help mitigate the
visual aesthetics from the neighborhood, notably lighting. He stated that the parking will be self-
regulating as tenants will not want to come into a space that does not have enough parking.
Planning Manager Thomson noted that there will be a continuous sidewalk on Lancaster Lane.
She stated that additional development in the future would require the applicant to go back
through the PUD process. She asked how noise mitigation would be addressed.
Mr. Bartele said that had not come up as an issue thus far, but stated that they have kept the two
primary access spots in their current locations, as those are good buffers to the neighborhood and
have been working in the past.
Planning Manager Thomson asked and received clarification that the water runoff would be
directed to the south.
Mr. Gebauer explained that the water that comes onto the site would travel to the south and to
their stormwater pond. He noted that he is not sure how to respond to the existing water
conditions in the neighborhood mentioned during the public hearing, but confirmed that they
would be handling the stormwater on their own development site and as it travels through the
site.
Mr. Bartele explained how they will be reusing the existing pilings because of the poor soil
conditions. He stated that they are not anticipating any below grade uses. He stated that the
parking ramp already has some projected growth included with the City’s the park-and-ride
facility. He stated that other parking structures they have on other projects of this nature are not
under parked, and he would not want to see a large oversized parking ramp that sits half full.
Mr. Gebauer stated that snow storage has been thought about and planned for and identified areas
that he has planned for snow storage. He stated that they will not have snow storage in the water
treatment features because of the chemicals that are used in snow removal.
Planning Manager Thomson asked about the idea of a walking bridge across Lancaster Lane that
was mentioned.
Page 13
Proposed Minutes 11 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Mr. Gebauer replied that they do not have control of the other side of the roadway where a bridge
would need to end and stated that there is not enough walking traffic known to generate the
expense of a study.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that the City contracted independently with an outside source
for the traffic study and was in control of the study rather than the developer.
Ms. Camp stated that they support the possibility of a farmer’s market as it provides a nearby
location for people to gain fresh, low-cost options for purchasing food.
Mr. Bartele stated that often a farmer’s market can pair with an art show for a fun community
event as well.
Ms. Camp stated that the market for this area shows a huge demand for hotels and for the
conference space.
Mr. Langford stated that they had a study done by HVS, which is the leading authority on hotel
demand. He stated that there were very strong occupancy and average rate marks for both hotels.
He stated that both hotels come from strong brands and will pull in reservations during slow
times.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that prostitution is a concern of the City and the police
department as well. She stated that there are other hotels in the city and the police department
handles incidents swiftly when they occur.
Ms. Reiling-Holden stated that she envisions the restaurant to be a community-serving
restaurant, noting that most restaurants will want a beer/wine liquor license. She noted that food
would be the majority of the sales. She also noted that she cannot certify a restaurant tenant until
they go out hard to the market.
Mr. Bartele stated that the traffic counts and truck traffic would be similar to the Four Seasons
Mall traffic, but noted that the hotels would not have the same types and level of activity as the
prior grocery store that had been in the mall.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that if the project goes through, there will be more traffic than
there currently is with a vacant site and will have slightly higher traffic than the peak time of the
Four Seasons Mall. She noted that the traffic is nothing that cannot be handled by the current
roadway network.
Mr. Bartele stated that putting the housing on the site will put “eyes on the street” for the other
uses as this is their neighborhood and residents will want to see it in quality condition.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that when the commission deliberates they may want to
consider a monument sign for the senior housing building.
Ms. Camp stated that it would be a low monument sign in the front of their site to identify the
building for visitors.
Page 14
Proposed Minutes 12 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Mr. Bartele stated that both hotel sites are ringed with parking up front, so the primary parking is
adjacent to each of the buildings.
Mr. Gebauer stated that the central water feature will have two small cascades which could
generate a little white noise but that will be washed out by the trees.
Planning Manager Thomson referenced the study the City undertook to determine possible uses
once it was known that the mall would close and noted that hotels were not envisioned in any of
the resulting scenarios.
Acting Chair Anderson referenced the topic of architecture, noting that the developer agrees with
the staff comments regarding removal of the ribbed material. He stated that the height issue
seems to still be out there. He asked if there were any concerns from the commission with
architectural elements.
Commissioner Oakley stated that the architect convinced him that the horizontal elements should
not be eliminated from the design. He stated that the height of the buildings is the tough
question, noting that the challenge with the site is that it is narrow. He stated that the portion of
the site adjacent to the highway is a good fit for the taller buildings. He stated that the south end
of the site is relatively close to buildings that are almost as tall and therefore he could support the
heights as proposed.
Commissioner Witte agreed that the horizontal elements help to diminish the height. He stated
that this seems to be a well-conceived plan in terms of the placement of the taller buildings. He
stated that he likes the architecture and the plan, although he has a concern that there could be
too much in this space.
Commissioner Saba stated that he likes to see some diversity in a development and thought that
it was a good message to see separate hotels as part of the same development.
Commissioner Goldetsky stated that he has witnessed the life cycle of this site and thinks that
this plan is very nice on many levels. He stated that he is comfortable with the language in the
conditions and would have no problem adding the language to allow farmer’s markets and the
monument sign for the senior building. He stated that he has always been concerned that the
vacant development could create a place for youth trouble to occur but commended the police
department for not letting that happen. He stated that this will be a vibrant development in the
community, and he will support the request.
Acting Chair Anderson noted the elements included in PUD flexibility and asked for the input of
the commission in terms of the overall request as this is a lot of development for the site, and
there have been concerns mentioned regarding parking.
Commissioner Saba stated that this development has been well planned and there was a diverse
group of people speaking tonight from the applicant’s team, not only the people that created the
plan and/or worked on the details, but also people that will be selling the space. He stated that
this will be market-driven and that will address the concerns, as the market forces clarify the
Page 15
Proposed Minutes 13 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
steps. He stated that they know what they need to do to make it a successful complex, as you
need to know the elements that will make sales and long-term success a reality.
Acting Chair Anderson stated that under the PUD there is a higher quality of development
required and believed that the City is seeing that in the architectural elements. He noted that this
is a very expensive site to develop because of the sponge-like quality of the soils. He stated that
this is true of any development that will occur on this site and therefore perhaps that is the
tradeoff for allowing additional square footage. He stated that medical uses were not included in
the original staff conditions but have been mentioned as a possible want from the developer and
asked for input from the commission.
Commissioner Goldetsky stated that he does not have a problem with allowing a medical use.
He stated that he works in the healthcare industry, and there has been a bias over the years
against it. He noted that there are not a lot of police calls to healthcare locations compared to
other types of uses.
Commissioner Oakley stated that he would also support a medical type use. He noted that there
is typically not a problem of under parking in Plymouth, and he does not advocate for too large
of a parking lot. He stated that there is a mix in the uses and as long as the demand for parking
does not all occur at the same time, he would support opening up the allowable uses.
Acting Chair Anderson asked if there could be language included that would allow more uses as
long as the applicant can prove that there would be sufficient parking for the different types of
uses.
Planning Manager Thomson agreed that staff could attempt to draft potential language prior to
the City Council meeting.
Commissioner Witt stated that she also lives near this development and has seen it go from
vibrant to the conditions today. She stated that this is a lot of development for the site. She
stated that there is no guarantee that this will remain full and provided the example of the Target
shopping center that opened with a gusto and has struggled to remain full. She stated that this is
a lot to request, and she is unsettled. She stated that there is no doubt in her mind that this will
pass and will be constructed. She stated that if there is a lot of traffic, if the center does not
remain full, the residents will have to live with that. She noted that this seems full to the brim
and asked if it is necessary to allow this much in that space. She asked the commission to be
mindful and not be distracted by the shiny penny. She stated that she would not support a
medical use in this location. She noted that the traffic at Lancaster Lane and 36th Avenue will be
impacted and that has not even been addressed.
Senior Planner Drill stated that a monument sign as proposed for the senior building would fit
within the requirements of the C-2 zoning district, and therefore there would be no problem with
that. He agreed that it would be odd not to have a monument sign at the entrance of the
development and stated that it simply was not placed on the applicant’s plan and will be a part of
the sign plan the applicant will later submit. He noted that a farmer’s market is usually permitted
through an administrative permit. He noted that the specific condition could be amended to not
exclude farmer’s markets.
Page 16
Proposed Minutes 14 of 14 Meeting of January 4, 2017
Planning Manager Thomson stated that staff does have the direction to determine the further
details regarding the plants within the water treatment element.
MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Witte, to approve the request
by Rock Hill Management, LLC for a rezoning, deleting the exclusion of offices/clinics for
medical, dental, or chiropractic services provided that sufficient parking is demonstrated, PUD
general plan and preliminary plat for a redevelopment of the Four Seasons Mall site to be called
“Agora” for property located at 4200 Lancaster Lane with the following revisions and additions:
Condition 14 is revised to allow farmer’s markets if approved by administrative permit,
Condition 21.c. is deleted, Condition 22.d. is revised to allow a 60 square foot monument sign
for the senior housing building, and Condition 23.c.3. is eliminated. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION
approved.
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Acting Chair Anderson, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 P.M.
Page 17
Agenda Number 7B
File 2016 075
PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING
STAFF REPORT
TO: Plymouth Planning Commission
FROM: Shawn Drill, Senior Planner (509-5456) through Barbara Thomson,
Planning Manager
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2017
APPLICANT: Rock Hill Management, LLC
PROPOSAL: Rezoning, PUD General Plan, and Preliminary Plat for a
redevelopment of the Four Seasons Mall site to be called “Agora”
LOCATION: 4200 Lancaster Lane (southwest of County Road 9 and Highway 169)
GUIDING: C (commercial)
CURRENT ZONING: C-2 (neighborhood commercial)
SCHOOL DISTRICT: ISD 281 (Robbinsdale)
REVIEW DEADLINE: May 3, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval of the following items for the roughly 17.3-acre site:
• rezoning from C-2 to PUD (planned unit development)
• PUD general plan for a development including two hotels, a senior housing building,
commercial uses, and a 339-space parking ramp
• preliminary plat for seven lots and one outlot
Page 18
File 2016075
Page 2 of 19
Notice of the public hearing was published in the City’s official newspaper. Because the
proposal involves a rezoning, two mailed notices were sent out to all property owners located
within 750 feet of the site. One notice was sent upon receipt of the proposal, and the other notice
was sent 12 days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the notification area map is attached.
Development signage has also been posted on the site.
CONTEXT:
Surrounding Land Uses
Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning
North (across
Co. Rd. 9)
Commercial uses to the
northwest: Holiday Gas Station,
Burger King, Plymouth VIP
Auto, Taco Bell, & Wendy’s;
Office uses to the northeast
C and CO
(commercial office),
respectively
C-3 (highway
commercial) and O
(office), respectively
East (across
Hwy. 169)
Single- and two-family homes
in New Hope --- ---
South and West (across
Lancaster Lane)
Office Uses
--
Townhomes
--
Single-family homes
CO
--
LA-4
(living area 4)
--
LA-1
(living area 1)
O
--
RMF-4
(multi-family 4)
--
RSF-1
(single family 1)
Natural Characteristics of Site
The site is located in the Bassett Creek drainage district. The site is located in the shoreland
management overlay district for Lost Creek, which is “exempt” from the shoreland regulations
because it is contained in a pipe. There are no floodplain areas on the site. There is one wetland
in the south portion of the site, and one DNR watercourse that flows through a portion of the
wetland. Poor soils on the site required the previous mall building to be built on pilings.
Previous Actions
The Fours Seasons Shopping Mall was constructed in 1978, prior to current wetland regulations.
The mall was shuttered about five years ago. The existing structure contains roughly 117,000
square feet in building area. The applicant has a purchase agreement to buy the site from
Walmart, who was previously considering a 150,000-square foot superstore for the site.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed redevelopment project was
presented to the Planning Commission on December 7, 2016, and to the City Council on January
3, 2017.
Page 19
File 2016075
Page 3 of 19
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application.
This is because the rezoning of land is a “quasi-legislative” action (enactment of policy). The
zoning ordinance and map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and standards
set by the comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a PUD general plan.
This is because PUD approval is a “quasi-legislative” action (enactment of policy). The City
may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if deemed necessary to
protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The proposal
must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance.
This is because preliminary plat review is a “quasi-judicial” action (enforcement of established
policy). If a preliminary plat application meets the standards, the City must approve the
preliminary plat.
POLICY CONTEXT
In 2010, Plymouth applied for and subsequently received Metropolitan Council Livable
Communities Demonstration Account Pre-Development grant funds and Hennepin County funds
to undertake a detailed analysis (market analysis, alternative site designs, traffic studies and
storm water/environmental review and design) of the Four Seasons Mall site. These in-depth
studies were intended to provide a prospective redeveloper the knowledge necessary to make an
informed decision on what the City would be expecting in a proposed development. As part of
the application, the City formed a partnership with Hennepin County and the Bassett Creek
Watershed Commission to analyze how to improve water quality and water amenities.
Environmental improvements were looked at as a way of not only improving the immediate area,
but also improving downstream water bodies in neighboring communities.
The outcome of this effort was a set of Guiding Principles that address land use/urban design,
architecture, transportation/connectivity, and storm water treatment. Each of these principles
will be woven into the analysis that follows. Note that the principles were designed to guide
redevelopment of the site, and they should not be construed as requirements unless re-formed as
conditions of approval in the attached resolution.
Page 20
File 2016075
Page 4 of 19
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
The Plymouth City Council and Economic Development Authority (EDA) have started the
process of establishing a tax increment financing (TIF) redevelopment district to assist with the
extraordinary costs of site preparation related to soil conditions and building demolition. The
Planning Commission will review the proposed TIF redevelopment district for compliance with
the comprehensive plan on January 18, 2017. The City Council will consider the TIF proposal
on January 24, 2017.
ANALYSIS OF REQUEST:
Rezoning
The applicant is requesting to rezone the roughly 17.3-acre site from C-2 to PUD to
accommodate the proposed redevelopment project. A PUD is a customized zoning district that
provides the City with a high level of regulatory control.
Chapter 462.357, Subd. 2 of State Statutes requires that the zoning map for each city be
consistent with its adopted land use guide plan. Both the current C-2 zoning and the proposed
PUD zoning are consistent with the C guiding of the site. The requested PUD zoning would
allow commercial uses and senior housing on the site.
The request to rezone the site to PUD would be appropriate, based on the following findings:
1. The proposed PUD zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other city
policies and plans.
2. The proposed PUD zoning would provide the City with a higher level of regulatory
control than could be achieved under conventional zoning.
3. The proposed development would incorporate common elements in the design and
materials for buildings, as well as for landscaping and the walkway system, in order to
create a unified development.
4. Adequate infrastructure would be available to support the proposed development.
5. The land uses proposed for the PUD would fill market needs, pursuant to the Guiding
Principles established for redevelopment of the site.
PUD General Plan
A PUD zoning designation allows the City to require higher development standards and provides
the City with a higher level of regulatory control than could be achieved under conventional
zoning, with respect to allowable land uses, architecture, design, materials, signage, internal
pedestrian circulation, and other site features. Because PUDs are customized zoning districts,
they also provide for flexibility to the conventional zoning standards for items such as building
setbacks and height.
Page 21
File 2016075
Page 5 of 19
Under the plan, the existing shopping mall building would be removed. As discussed below, the
foundation would remain.
The proposed PUD would include the following:
• Building 1 – 9,860 square foot administrative office; two stories in height.
• Building 2 – 95-room hotel (Aloft) with no conference space; four stories in height.
• Buildings 3/4 – 18,000 square feet of retail use; one story in height.
• Building 5 – 43,875 square feet of commercial uses including a 5,400 square foot
restaurant, 10,000 square foot administrative office, and 28,475 square feet of retail use;
one and two stories in height.
• Building 6 – 100-room hotel (Town Place Suites) with an 8,000 square foot conference
space; four stories in height.
• Building 7 – 139-units of senior housing (65 independent living apartments, 50 assisted
living apartments, and 24 memory care rooms); four and five stories in height.
• Building 9 – 339-space parking ramp, of which up to 200 spaces would be for City
park-and-ride bus service on weekdays during business hours; three levels.
• Building 10 – 7,435 square feet of retail use; one story in height.
• Building 11 – 2,116 square foot bank; one story in height.
As the project evolved, Buildings 8 and 12 were eliminated from the final site plan for the PUD.
In addition to the hotels and senior housing building, the site would total 81,286 square feet of
commercial space, as follows: 61,426 square feet of retail space and 19,860 square feet of
administrative office space.
Due to poor soil conditions on the site and need for pilings to support building foundations, the
applicant is proposing to re-use portions of the existing building foundation (which is already set
on pilings) for Buildings 3, 4 and 5.
Page 22
File 2016075
Page 6 of 19
Traffic
The Guiding Principles established for redevelopment of the site state that “development shall
not exceed the capacity of the existing road network, unless improvements can be made to
maintain the existing level of service.” The City’s traffic consultant for this development, SRF
Consulting Group, recently conducted a traffic study in order to evaluate traffic impacts of the
proposed development. (A copy of the traffic study is attached).
The traffic study was based on a previous development plan which included more uses
(including a freestanding coffee shop with drive-thru) and more square footage than is now being
proposed. Based on the previous development plan, the traffic study estimated that the site
would generate 6,845 average daily trips. (A round trip equal two trips.) With the reduction in
uses and square footage pursuant to the current development plan, it is anticipated that the
number of average daily trips would decrease accordingly. Note that the previous traffic study
that was conducted in relation to a Walmart store on the site estimated 7,895 average daily trips.
The capacity of nearby affected intersections was analyzed/modeled to identify the projected
Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection would function. Intersections
are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle
to get through an intersection. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation (10 seconds or less of
delay), while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity (over 80 seconds
of delay at signalized intersections and over 50 seconds of delay at unsignalized intersections).
LOS A though LOS D are generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities area. The traffic
study concluded that, with two changes, all of the nearby affected intersections would operate at
a LOS C or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak travel times. The two recommended changes
include:
• Optimization of the signal timing phases at the intersection of County Road 9 and
Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane; and
• Extension of the westbound left turn lane on County Road 9 (to southbound Lancaster
Lane) from roughly 200 feet in length to 300 feet in length.
The applicant would be required to coordinate the signal timing adjustments with Hennepin
County, and extend the westbound left turn lane on County Road 9. The attached resolution
address these requirements.
Site Access
The Guiding Principals established for redevelopment of the site state that “site access points
shall be limited to current locations.” Proposed access points for the site would be via the two
existing street connections to Lancaster Lane along the western boundary of the site. In addition,
a new right-in/right-out only access would be provided along Lancaster Lane roughly 490 feet
from its intersection with County Road 9. That proposed access driveway would align with the
Page 23
File 2016075
Page 7 of 19
Nathan Lane segment lying south of Lancaster Lane. Staff finds that the new right-in/right-out
only access point would help to reduce the number of vehicles circulating the site internally,
which would reduce vehicular/pedestrian conflicts within the parking lot.
Cross-access easements would be recorded for all drive aisles within the development. The
attached resolution addresses this matter.
Parking
The required number of parking spaces within a PUD is flexible and is established by the
approved PUD general plan. Based on the land uses and square footages proposed, the standard
number of parking spaces specified for this proposed development would be 916 without the
City of Plymouth Metrolink park-and-ride facility, and 1,116 with the park-and-ride facility (as
described in more detail below). The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility to allow a total of
941 parking spaces on the site. Of the 941 parking spaces proposed, 518 would be surface
parking spaces, 339 would be in the parking ramp, and 84 would be under the senior building.
The Guiding Principles established for redevelopment of the site state that “transit facilities shall
be considered in conjunction with planning for site parking.” The parking ramp would provide
shared parking spaces for both a City of Plymouth Metrolink park-and-ride facility and for the
proposed development. The City anticipates that roughly 100 spaces in the parking ramp would
be needed for the park-and-ride facility initially, and that up to 200 spaces in the parking ramp
would be needed for the park-and-ride facility by 2030. (The parking ramp may be owned and
operated by the City as public parking after the facility is complete.) The park-and-ride facility
would be in operation weekdays during daytime hours. The parking spaces in the ramp that are
not needed for the park-and-ride during weekday daytime hours (239 spaces initially and 139
spaces by 2030) would be available for development parking during the operating hours for the
park-and-ride. Additionally, the parking ramp would be fully available for development parking
during weekday evenings and on weekends.
The applicant’s parking consultant, KLJ Engineering, prepared a parking analysis memorandum
(copy attached) which concludes that 941 parking spaces would be sufficient to serve both the
City park-and ride facility and the proposed development. KLJ’s conclusion was based, in part,
on the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineer’s) Parking Generation manual, which provides data for
peak parking demand for various land uses based on field-collected data. The KLJ analysis
reviewed the time of day as well as the day of week (weekday versus weekend) that the peak
parking demand occurs for each of the various land uses (i.e., office, retail, hotels, senior
housing) within the proposed development. Staff concurs with the parking consultant’s
conclusion.
Cross-parking easements would be recorded for the surface parking spaces, as required by the
attached resolution. The parking spaces under the senior housing building would be for the
exclusive use of that building. The spaces in the parking ramp would be managed via a separate
development agreement between the City and the applicant.
Page 24
File 2016075
Page 8 of 19
Pedestrian Circulation
The development would provide an internal pedestrian system consisting of a concrete walkway
that varies in width from six to eight feet. The walkway would also be concrete where it crosses
drive aisles in order to make it more identifiable to drivers and safer for pedestrians. The
walkway would connect all of the various uses to each other, and could be extended in the future
to tie into a possible future trail along the south side of County Road 9. There is an existing trail
along Lancaster Lane that would remain.
The development would also provide bicycle racks throughout the site in appropriate locations.
Building Setbacks
The minimum building setbacks within a PUD are flexible and are established by the approved
PUD general plan.
The standard front yard building setback specified for C-2 properties that abut non-residential
property, or that abut residential property separated by a major collector or arterial roadway, is
35 feet. The standard side and rear yard building setback specified for C-2 properties that abut
non-residential property, or that abut residential property separated by a major collector or
arterial roadway, is 15 feet. The standard front, side, and rear yard building setback specified for
C-2 properties that abut residential property, or that are separated from residential property by a
local street or minor collector roadway, is 75 feet. (County Road 9 and State Highway 169 are
arterial roadways; Lancaster Lane is a minor collector roadway.)
The applicant is proposing the following building setbacks to the site perimeter:
Building 1 (Office):
• Front yard to north lot line (County Road 9): 15 feet*
• Front yard to south lot line (Lancaster Lane): 35 feet
• Side yard to west lot line (well house outlot): 26 feet
*PUD flexibility is requested for a 15-foot setback (versus 35 feet) to the north lot line.
Building 2 (Aloft Hotel):
• Front yard to north lot line (County Road 9): 43 feet
• Front yard to south lot line (Lancaster Lane): 13 feet at nearest point*
*PUD flexibility is requested for a 13-foot setback (versus 35 feet) to the south lot line.
Buildings 3 and 4 (Retail):
• Front yard to north lot line (County Road 9): 107 feet and 82 feet, respectively
Building 5 (Retail/Office):
• Front yard to east lot line (Highway 169 ramp): 76 feet
Page 25
File 2016075
Page 9 of 19
Building 6 (Townplace Suites Hotel):
• Front yard to east lot line (Highway 169 ramp): 101 feet
• Side yard to lot line of apartment to the south: 500 feet
Building 7 (Senior Housing):
• Front yard to west lot line (Lancaster Lane): 11 feet at nearest point*
• Side yard to lot line of apartment to the south: 370 feet
*PUD flexibility is requested for an 11-foot setback (versus 75 feet) to the west lot line.
Building 9 (Parking Ramp):
• Front yard to west lot line (Lancaster Lane): 38 feet at nearest point
Building 10 (Retail):
• Front yard to west lot line (Lancaster Lane): 27 feet*
*PUD flexibility is requested for a 27-foot setback (versus 35 feet) to the west lot line.
Building 11 (Bank):
• Front yard to west lot line (Lancaster Lane): 41 feet
The applicant states that the requested PUD flexibility would aid in addressing the irregular
shape of the site and their need to use the existing building foundation for Buildings 3, 4, and 5.
Staff finds that the requested PUD flexibility for building setback would result in an efficient use
of land and would not result in adverse affects on the neighboring properties or the City.
Parking Lot Setbacks
The minimum parking lot setbacks within a PUD are flexible and are established by the
approved PUD general plan.
The standard parking setback specified to the perimeter of a site is 20 feet. The standard drive
aisle setback specified to the perimeter of the site is 10 feet, and the standard parking/drive aisle
setback specified to a building (excludes drive-thru service lanes and drop-off areas) is 10 feet.
Page 26
File 2016075
Page 10 of 19
The applicant is proposing the following parking/drive aisle setbacks:
Building 1 (Office):
• Parking to north lot line(County Road 9): 17 feet*
• Parking to south lot line (Lancaster Lane): 21 feet
• Parking to east building wall: 7 feet**
*PUD flexibility is requested for a 17-foot parking setback (versus 20 feet) from the north
lot line.
**PUD flexibility is requested for a 7-foot parking setback (versus 10 feet) from the east
building wall.
Building 2 (Aloft Hotel):
• Parking to north lot line (County Road 9): 1 foot*
• Drive aisle to north lot line (County Road 9): 17 feet
• Parking to south lot line (Lancaster Lane): 21 feet
• Drive aisle to north building wall: 0 feet**
• Parking and drive aisle to west building wall: 8 feet**
• Drive aisle to east building wall: 10 feet
*PUD flexibility is requested for a 1-foot parking setback (versus 20 feet) from the north
lot line. (The distance to the County Road 9 pavement is roughly 60 feet.)
**PUD flexibility is requested for a 0-foot drive aisle setback from a 70-foot section of
the 230-foot north building wall, and an 8-foot parking and drive aisle setback from
the west building wall (versus 10 feet).
Building 3 (Retail):
• Parking to north lot line (County Road 9): 28 feet
• Drive aisle to north building wall: 37 feet
• Parking to west building wall: 4 feet**
**PUD flexibility is requested for a 4-foot parking setback (versus 10 feet) from the west
building wall.
Building 4 (Retail):
• Parking to north lot line (County Road 9): 16 feet*
• Parking to north building wall: 6 feet**
*PUD flexibility is requested for a 16-foot parking setback (versus 20 feet) from the north
lot line.
**PUD flexibility is requested for a 6-foot parking setback (versus 10 feet) from the north
building wall.
Page 27
File 2016075
Page 11 of 19
Building 5 (Retail/Office):
• Parking to east lot line (Highway 169 ramp): 33 feet
• Drive aisle to east lot line (Highway 169 ramp):49 feet
• Parking to west building wall: 24 feet
• Drive aisle to east building wall: 2 feet**
• Parking to east building wall: 4 feet**
• Parking to south building wall: 9 feet**
**PUD flexibility is requested for a 2-foot drive aisle setback from the east building wall,
a 4-foot parking setback from the east building wall, and a 9-foot parking setback
from the south building wall (vs. 10 ft.).
Building 6 (Townplace Suites Hotel):
• Parking to east lot line (Highway 169 ramp): 33 feet
• Parking to lot line of apartment to the south: 465 feet
• Parking to north building wall: 6 feet**
• Parking to west building wall: 4 feet**
• Parking to east building wall: 3 feet**
• Drive aisle to south building wall: 9 feet**
**PUD flexibility is requested for a 6-foot parking setback from the north building wall,
a 4-foot parking setback from the west building wall, a 3-foot parking setback from the
east building wall, and a 9-foot drive aisle setback from the south building wall
(versus 10 feet).
Building 7 (Senior Housing):
• Parking to west lot line (Lancaster Lane ): 106 feet
• Drive aisle to west lot line (Lancaster Lane): 65 feet
• Drive aisle to lot line of apartment to the south: 383 feet
• Parking to north building wall: 35 feet
• Parking to east building wall: 15 feet
Building 9 (Parking Ramp):
• Surface parking to west lot line (Lancaster): 80 feet
• Surface parking to east parking ramp wall: 15 feet
• Surface parking to south parking ramp wall: 25 feet
Building 10 (Retail):
• Parking to west lot line (Lancaster Lane): 30 feet
• Drive aisle to west lot line (Lancaster Lane): 20 feet
• Parking to north building wall: 10 feet
• Parking to east building wall: 52 feet
Page 28
File 2016075
Page 12 of 19
Building 11 (Bank):
• Parking to west lot line (Lancaster Lane): 20 feet
• Drive aisle to north building wall: 15 feet
• Parking to east building wall: 30 feet
• Parking to south building wall: 10 feet
The applicant states that the requested PUD flexibility would aid in addressing the irregular
shape of the site and their need to use the existing building foundation for Buildings 3, 4, and 5.
Staff finds that the requested PUD flexibility for parking and drive aisle setbacks would result in
an efficient use of land and would not result in adverse affects on the neighboring properties or
the City.
Drive Aisle Widths
The minimum drive aisle widths within a PUD are flexible and are established by the approved
PUD general plan.
The standard drive aisle width specified between rows of parking is 26 feet. The two main
driveway entrances into the site (from the existing Lancaster Lane curb cuts) would be 26 feet
wide. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility to allow other drive aisles to be 24 feet wide.
The reduced width would still allow adequate access for fire department apparatus and other
large emergency vehicles. Turning radius requirements are addressed in the attached resolution.
Drive-Through Stacking
The drive-through stacking regulations within a PUD are flexible and are established by the
approved PUD general plan.
The proposal includes one building (Building 11, Bank) that would provide drive-through
window service via two drive-through lanes. The standard number of stacking spaces specified
for this drive-through is four per drive-through lane. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility
to allow two stacking spaces per drive through lane. Staff finds that the proposed stacking would
be sufficient, given today’s typical bank drive-though usage.
Building Height
The maximum building heights within a PUD are flexible and are established by the approved
PUD general plan.
Page 29
File 2016075
Page 13 of 19
The standard building height specified for C-2 properties is 30 feet. The applicant is proposing
the following building heights:
Building 1 (Office): two stories, 27 feet
Building 2 (Aloft Hotel): four stories, 51.67 feet with a projecting parapet that extends to
61.5 feet*
*PUD flexibility is requested.
Buildings 3 and 4 (Retail): one story, 22 feet
Building 5 (Retail/Office): one and two stories
• 24 feet for main level retail use
• 33 feet for second level office use*
*PUD flexibility is requested.
Building 6 (Townplace Suites Hotel): four stories, 44 feet with a projecting parapet that
extends to 52 feet*
*PUD flexibility is requested.
Building 7 (Senior Housing): four and five stories
• 44 feet (four stories) for the building wing abutting Lancaster Lane*
• 56 feet (five stories) for the remainder of the building*
*PUD flexibility is requested.
Building 9 (Parking Ramp): three levels (lower level would be partially below grade), 22
feet
Building 10 (Retail): one story, 22 feet
Building 11 (Bank): one story, 18 feet
The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility for the height of four buildings as follows: Building
2 (Aloft), Building 5 (retail/office), Building 6 (Townplace Suites Hotel), and Building 7 (senior
housing). The applicant states that Buildings 2, 5, and 6 would be located near County Road 9 or
the entrance ramp to State Highway 169, and that Building 7 would be located across Lancaster
Lane from existing multi-family housing.
Staff finds that the requested PUD flexibility for building height would result in an efficient use
of land and would not result in adverse affects on the neighboring properties or the City.
Page 30
File 2016075
Page 14 of 19
Architectural Character
The Guiding Principles established for redevelopment of the site incorporate elements that
address architectural character. Staff has re-formed several of these principles as conditions of
approval in the attached resolution. In addition, staff has expanded on the architectural
standards, drawing from criteria applied to other PUDs in the City (Plymouth Station and Shops
at Plymouth Creek). All buildings on the site would need to conform to the standards laid out in
the resolution.
As currently proposed, primary building materials include brick, split-face integral colored
block, stucco and metal panels, including vertical ribbed panels on the Aloft Hotel, and more
than one color of window glazing. The resolution includes a condition addressing acceptable
building materials, noting that vertical ribbed panels are not acceptable. The resolution also
includes a condition requiring the tint of window glazing for all buildings in the development to
be complementary.
The Guiding Principles call for senior housing to be no more than three stories in height with
lower building heights adjacent to the existing neighborhood. As described earlier in this report,
much of the proposed senior building would be five stories in height, however, the building wing
that abuts Lancaster Lane (nearest existing residential uses) would be stepped down to four
stories in height. The building elevation facing Lancaster Lane would also include wall change
projections, balconies and a variety of materials, including wood-look fiber cement panels and
lap siding. Staff finds that the combination of these elements would compensate for the
additional building height.
The applicant has stated that the design, materials and colors used throughout the site are
intended to be complementary and timeless. Staff is concerned that some of the architectural
elements, notably the repeated use of horizontal elements in the retail buildings, could become
dated. Staff has included conditions in the attached resolution addressing this concern and
requiring all facades of all buildings to be four-sided and all buildings to use the same color
palette and comparable range of materials. The architecture and materials would be reviewed
administratively as part of the PUD final plan required for each building.
Signage
The Guiding Principles established for redevelopment of the site state that “individual signage
for a mixed use development shall be consistent with a comprehensive sign plan that provides
overall continuity of signage throughout the development.” The applicant states that they will
submit a master sign plan in the future for city review and consideration, and that the signage
would have a cohesive, coordinated design. In the meantime, the proposal indicates five
freestanding signs, as follows:
• Two 35-foot high, 150 square foot pylon signs along the east side of the site bordering
the State Highway 169 entrance ramp;
Page 31
File 2016075
Page 15 of 19
• One 35-foot high, 125 square foot pylon sign along the north side of the site bordering
County Road 9; and
• Two 12-foot high, 100 square foot monument signs along the west side of the site
bordering Lancaster Lane – one near each of the two main driveway entrances to the site.
Staff finds that the 35-foot high, 125 square foot pylon sign along County Road 9 would be
visible from residential properties to the southwest and should be eliminated from the plan. The
attached resolution address this matter. The attached resolution also includes a number of
conditions relating to signage that would need to be addressed in the master sign plan and met
prior to issuance of sign permits.
In addition to free-standing signage, wall signage would be allowed on all buildings except
Building 7 (Senior Housing).
Landscaping
Based on the square footages proposed, the number of trees required for the proposed
development would be 409. The proposal indicates planting the equivalent of 345 trees on the
site. Of the 345 trees proposed, 252 would be deciduous trees, 70 would be evergreens, and 69
would be ornamentals (credited at 3 ornamentals equals 1 tree). Based on the current
landscaping plan, the developer would be required to pay roughly $20,000 to the community
planting fund to cover the shortfall in landscape trees (the attached resolution addresses this
matter). Staff will, however, continue to work with the applicant to refine the landscaping – in
conjunction with review of the PUD final plans – to install more trees on the site in a manner that
provides additional buffering along Lancaster Lane.
Lighting
The applicant has not yet provided a lighting plan, but would be required to do so in conjunction
with submission of the PUD final plans required for this development. The site is located in
Lighting Zone 2 (LZ-2). The lighting plan would be required to comply with all of the City’s
LZ-2 regulations relating to maximum lighting allowance (lumens per square foot), BUG
(backlight/uplight/glare) rating, and fixture mounting height. The attached resolution addresses
this matter.
The Guiding Principles established for the redevelopment of this site state that “lighting fixtures
at walkways, gathering spaces, building fronts and entries shall be pedestrian-scaled (no higher
than 15 feet).” The attached resolution also addresses this matter.
Page 32
File 2016075
Page 16 of 19
Drainage/Treatment of Runoff
The Guiding Principles established for the redevelopment of this site state that “site development
shall result in less impervious surface coverage.” Roughly 78 percent of the site area is
presently covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed plan would result in an impervious
surface coverage of roughly 72 percent.
The Guiding Principles established for the redevelopment of this site also state that “solutions for
the handling of storm water shall: 1) be amenity-driven; 2) recognize both natural drainage
patterns and soil limitations on the site; and 3) result in an improvement in on-site water quality
treatment.” Pursuant to the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) flexible treatment
options, the site will be required to achieve rate control to match existing conditions, provide
non-degradation of suspended solids, provide 60 percent phosphorus removal, and provide
volume abstraction to the extent practicable due to the poor soil conditions. The proposed plan
would meet the standards by enhancing the existing wetland. The wetland would be converted
into a stormwater wetland feature with a forebay that includes an iron-enhanced sand filter
bench, infiltration, filtration, and pollutant uptake and removal via wetland planting. In addition,
the applicant is in discussions with Bassett Creek Watershed district to provide best management
practices (BMPs) on the site that would result in improvements, including phosphorus
reductions, to the quality of existing regional stormwater in the area which flows to Northwood
Lake in New Hope.
The applicant would need to demonstrate compliance with City and watershed requirements
pertaining to drainage and treatment of runoff. The attached resolution addresses this matter.
Outside Storage/Display
No outside storage or display of goods or merchandise would be allowed, in compliance with the
Guiding Principles established for redevelopment of this site. The attached resolution addresses
this matter.
Trash/Recycling
Trash and recyclables generated by this site would be stored inside the buildings, in compliance
with the Guiding Principles established for redevelopment of this site. The attached resolution
addresses this matter.
Vacation of Right-of-Way
The developer would need to obtain prior City Council approval of their request to vacate an
unused portion of Lancaster Lane right-of-way located south of Building 2 (Aloft Hotel). This
request will be presented at the January 24, 2017 City Council meeting. The attached resolution
addresses this matter.
Page 33
File 2016075
Page 17 of 19
Construction Timing
If the project is approved, the applicant states that building demolition and site preparation/
infrastructure installation for the entire site would occur first. Upon completion of the site work,
the applicant states that construction of the buildings would commence, and would occur
simultaneously. Construction for the hotels is expected to take roughly 14 months, construction
of the senior building is expected to take roughly 12 months, and construction of the commercial
uses and parking ramp would take less than a year. It is anticipated that all construction would
be completed by the end of 2018. The attached resolution requires that all parking (including the
parking ramp) be installed prior to any occupancy of any of the buildings.
Conclusion on the PUD General Plan
If the City rezones the site to PUD, staff supports the requested PUD general plan with the
findings that the proposal: 1) would be consistent with the comprehensive plan; 2) would
redevelop a shuttered mall and provide housing options for seniors; and 3) would comply with
the standards outlined in the zoning ordinance for establishment of a PUD.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to establish seven lots and one outlot
for this roughly 17.3-acre site.
An existing City well house is situated (via easement) in the northwest portion of the site, on the
area to be platted as Outlot A. Under the plan, Outlot A would be dedicated to the City.
There are no new public streets proposed for this development. The existing trail running along
the north/east side of Lancaster Lane would remain.
Page 34
File 2016075
Page 18 of 19
Lot Arrangement
There is no minimum or maximum lot size requirement specified for PUDs. The following table
indicates the lot size and proposed use for each lot:
Lot Use Sq. Ft. (Acreage)
Outlot A Existing City Well House 9,679 (0.222)
1 Building 1 (Office) 28,102 (0.645)
2 Building 2 (Aloft) 78,062 (1.792)
3 Building 3 (Retail) 55,842 (1.282)
4 Building 11 (Bank) 23,544 (0.540)
5
Building 4 (Retail),
Building 5 (Retail & Office),
Building 9 (Parking Ramp), &
Building 10 (Retail)
364,889 (8.377)
6 Building 7 (Senior Housing) 96,515 (2.215)
7 Building 6 (Townplace Suites) 96,780 (2.222)
Total: 753,413 (17.295)
If the City would ultimately have ownership interest in the parking ramp (which is presently
shown on Lot 5 together with other buildings), the City may require that the parking ramp be
placed on its own separate lot. This change would not affect the preliminary plat, and can be
addressed when the final plat application is submitted to the City. The attached resolution
addresses this matter.
Park Dedication
Park dedication has previously been satisfied for this site. As a result, no park dedication fee
would be required in conjunction with this development.
Conclusion on Preliminary Plat
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the proposed plat for consistency with the
applicable standards outlined in the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, and finds that
the proposed plat meets or exceeds all standards. Consequently, staff supports the requested
preliminary plat application.
Page 35
File 2016075
Page 19 of 19
RECOMMENDATION:
Community Development Department staff recommends approval of rezoning, PUD general
plan, and preliminary plat for Rock Hill Management, LLC, subject to the findings and
conditions listed in the attached resolutions and ordinance.
If new information is brought forward at the public hearing, staff may alter or reconsider its
recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning and Amending the Zoning Ordinance Text
2. Draft Resolution Approving Findings of Fact supporting the Zoning Amendments
3. Draft Resolution Approving PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat
4. Location Map
5. Aerial Photo
6. Notification Area Map
7. Applicant’s Narrative
8. Traffic Study
9. Parking Analysis Memorandum
10. Site Graphics
Page 36
SITE
CO. RD. 9
HWY. 169LANCASTERLNP IL G R IM L NNATHAN
LNC
CO
CO
LA-4
LA-1
LA-1
C COCCOC
LA-1
LA-1
LA-4
LA-4
LA-1
Location Map - 2016075
Rock Hill Management
4200 Lancaster Lane -- Four Seasons Mall
Rezoning, PUD General Plan, and Preliminary Plat K
600 0 600 1,200 1,800300
Feet
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Memorandum
ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM
SRF No. 0169345
To: Steve Juetten, Community Development Director
City of Plymouth
From: Emily Gross, PE, Senior Engineer
Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate
Date: December 14, 2016
Subject: Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study
Introduction
SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment located in the
southeast quadrant of the Rockford Road (County Road 9) and Nathan Lane/Lancaster Lane
intersection in the City of Plymouth (see Figure 1: Project Location). This study is an update to the
Four Seasons Mall Traffic Study: Existing Conditions Analysis (dated January 2011) and the Traffic Study of
the Illustrative Redevelopment Scenarios of the Four Seasons Mall Site (dated September 2011). The main
objectives of this study are to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate traffic impacts
of the proposed development, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the
proposed development. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and
recommendations offered for consideration.
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify any future impacts
associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes intersection
turning movement counts, field observations, and an intersection capacity analysis.
Data Collection
Peak period turning movement counts were collected by SRF on Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at the
following study intersections:
•Lancaster Lane and Existing Four Seasons Mall North Access
•Lancaster Lane and Pilgrim Lane/Existing Four Seasons Mall South Access
•36th Avenue and Lancaster Lane
•36th Avenue and Kilmer Lane
Page 49
5RFNIRUG5RDG &RXQW\5RDG 1DWKDQ/DQH/DQFDVWHU/DQH3LOJUL
P
/D
QH
WK$YHQXH
.LOPHU/DQHWK$YHQXH
+LOOVERUR$YHQXH1257+1RUWK+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),*B3URMHFW/RFDWLRQFGU3URMHFW
/RFDWLRQ
'HFHPEHU
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\
&LW\RI3O\PRXWK
)LJXUH
Page 50
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 3
Recently collected turning movement counts at the remaining study intersections were utilized at the
Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane, the Nathan Lane and Frontage Road, and the
36th Avenue and TH 169 interchange intersections. These counts were collected in March/April 2016
and include traffic generated by the schools near the study area. Since school traffic influences area
study intersection operations, the August 2016 traffic volumes were adjusted to represent existing year
2016 conditions with school in session. In addition, historical annual average daily traffic (AADT)
volumes within the study area were provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT).
Observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway
geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls). Currently, Rockford Road is a four-lane divided
roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph). Lancaster Lane is a four-lane divided
roadway that transitions to a two-lane undivided roadway south of Pilgrim Lane. The posted speed
limit along Lancaster Lane is 30 mph. 36th Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway west of the study
area and transitions to a four-lane undivided roadway east of Lancaster Lane. The posted speed limit
along 36th Avenue is 30 mph. Pilgrim Lane and Kilmer Lane are two-lane roadways with no posted
speed limit.
The Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane, Nathan Lane and Frontage Road, and the
36th Avenue and TH 169 interchange intersections are signalized, while all other study intersections
are side-street stop controlled. It should be noted that TH 169 is functionally classified as a principal
arterial, Rockford Road is functionally classified as a minor arterial, and 36th Avenue is functionally
classified as a major collector. Lancaster Lane and Pilgrim Lane are both classified as minor collectors.
Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 2.
Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software (V9.0) to
establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared. Capacity analysis
results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating.
Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay
per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the
best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall
intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities area.
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Designation Signalized Intersection
Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds)
Unsignalized Intersection
Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds)
A 10 10
B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15
C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25
D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35
E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50
F > 80 > 50
Page 51
5RFNIRUG5RDG &RXQW\5RDG 1DWKDQ/DQH/DQFDVWHU/DQH3LOJUL
P/
D
QH
WK$YHQXH
.LOPHU/DQHWK$YHQXH
+LOOVERUR$YHQXH/(*(1'
;;
;;
$03HDN+RXU7UDIILF9ROXPHV
303HDN+RXU7UDIILF9ROXPHV
6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6LGH6WUHHW6WRS&RQWURO,QWHUVHFWLRQ
([LVWLQJ$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIILF
1257+1RUWK
&6$+ 1DWKDQ/Q/DQFDVWHU/Q
/DQFDVWHU/Q1RUWK$FFHVV
'ULYHZD\
WK$YH 1%7+ 5DPSV
/DQFDV
WH
U
/Q
6RXW
K
$
F
F
H
V
V
3LOJUL
P
/
Q
WK$YH /DQFDVWHU/Q
WK$YH
.LOPHU/Q1)URQWDJH5G
+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),*B([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQVFGU
WK$YH 6%7+ 5DPSV
'HFHPEHU
([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\
&LW\RI3O\PRXWK
)LJXUH
;;;;
3DUNLQJ/RW$FFHVV 1DWKDQ/Q1)URQWDJH5G
Page 52
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 5
For side-street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the
level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with
side-street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall
intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the
intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to
consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of
delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic
volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches,
but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions.
Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study
intersections currently operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with
the existing traffic controls and geometry. No significant queues or side-street delay were observed in
the field or traffic simulation. It should be noted that during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the
southbound 95th percentile queues at the Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane
intersection extend approximately 200 feet and 180 feet, respectively. These queues occasionally (i.e.
less than five percent of the peak hour) impact the Nathan Lane and Frontage Road intersection.
Table 2. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay
Nathan Lane and Frontage Road A 5 sec. A 6 sec.
Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane C 24 sec. C 26 sec.
Lancaster Lane and North Access (1) A/A 2 sec. A/A 7 sec.
Lancaster Lane and Pilgrim Lane/South Access (1) A/A 6 sec. A/A 6 sec.
36th Avenue and Lancaster Lane (1) A/C 17 sec. A/A 8 sec.
36th Avenue and Kilmer Lane (1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 8 sec.
36th Avenue at West TH 169 Ramps B 16 sec. B 11 sec.
36th Avenue at East TH 169 Ramps A 8 sec. A 9 sec.
(1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
Year 2019 No Build Conditions
To understand how general background growth and area planned developments are expected to
impact the study intersections, year 2019 no build conditions were reviewed. The year 2019 represents
one year post construction of the proposed development. The evaluation of the year 2019 no build
condition includes traffic forecast development and an intersection capacity analysis.
Page 53
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 6
Year 2019 No Build Traffic Forecasts
To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one (1) percent was
applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2019 background traffic forecasts.
This growth rate is consistent with recent traffic studies and historical ADT growth in the study area.
In addition to general background growth, there are plans to reopen Pilgrim Elementary School as a
magnet (K-3) school in the year 2017. Due to the proximity of the school (located along Pilgrim Lane
between 37th Avenue and 38th Avenue), trip estimates for the school were generated and distributed
throughout the study area. At the time of this study, detailed information regarding school hours,
student enrollment, and student address information was not available. However, school hours are
expected to start during the a.m. peak hour and end during the afternoon before the p.m. peak hour
of the adjacent roadways. Based on historical student enrollment data at the elementary school prior
to closing and discussion with City staff, approximately 400 students were assumed to be enrolled at
the school in the year 2019.
Trip generation estimates were developed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a daily basis. The
estimates shown in Table 3 were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. Results of the trip generation estimate indicate the school is expected
to generate approximately 180 a.m. peak hour, 60 p.m. peak hour, and 516 daily trips. The trips
generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in
Figure 3, which was developed based on existing travel patterns and engineering judgment. Resultant
year 2019 no build condition traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.
Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size
A.M. Peak
Hour Trips
P.M. Peak
Hour Trips Daily
Trips In Out In Out
Elementary School (520) 400 Students 99 81 29 31 516
Year 2019 No Build Intersection Capacity Analysis
To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate the year 2019 no build traffic
forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. Results
of the intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections are expected
to operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing traffic
controls and geometry. It should be noted that during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the
southbound 95th percentile queues at the Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane
intersection extend approximately 205 feet. These queues occasionally (i.e. less than five percent of
the peak hour) impact the Nathan Lane and Frontage Road intersection.
Page 54
5RFNIRUG5RDG &RXQW\5RDG 1DWKDQ/DQH/DQFDVWHU/DQH3LOJULP/DQHWK$YHQXH
.LOPHU/DQHWK$YHQXH
+LOOVERUR$YHQXH1257+1RUWK+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),*B6FKRRO'LUHFWLRQDO'LVWULEXWLRQFGU
'HFHPEHU
6FKRRO'LUHFWLRQDO'LVWULEXWLRQ
)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\
&LW\RI3O\PRXWK
)LJXUH
3LOJULP/DQH
(OHPHQWDU\
6FKRRO
5HVLGHQWLDO
1HLJKERUKRRG
3URMHFW
/RFDWLRQ
Page 55
5RFNIRUG5RDG &RXQW\5RDG 1DWKDQ/DQH/DQFDVWHU/DQH3LOJUL
P/
D
QH
WK$YHQXH
.LOPHU/DQHWK$YHQXH
+LOOVERUR$YHQXH1257+1RUWK
&6$+ 1DWKDQ/Q/DQFDVWHU/Q+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),*B 1R%XLOG&RQGLWLRQVFGU
'HFHPEHU
<HDU 1R%XLOG&RQGLWLRQV
)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\
&LW\RI3O\PRXWK
)LJXUH
/(*(1'
;;
;;
<HDU (VWLPDWHG$03HDN+RXU
7UDIILF9ROXPHV
<HDU (VWLPDWHG303HDN+RXU
7UDIILF9ROXPHV
6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6LGH6WUHHW6WRS&RQWURO,QWHUVHFWLRQ
<HDU 1R%XLOG&RQGLWLRQ
(VWLPDWHG$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIILF
/DQFDVWHU/Q1RUWK$FFHVV
'ULYHZD\
/DQFDV
WH
U
/Q
6RXW
K
$
F
F
H
V
V
3LOJUL
P
/
Q
;;;;
WK$YH 1%7+ 5DPSV
WK$YH 6%7+ 5DPSV
WK$YH
.LOPHU/Q
WK$YH /DQFDVWHU/Q
1)URQWDJH5G
3DUNLQJ/RW$FFHVV 1DWKDQ/Q1)URQWDJH5G
Page 56
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 9
Table 4. Year 2019 No Build Intersection Capacity Analysis
Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay
Nathan Lane and Frontage Road A 5 sec. A 7 sec.
Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane C 25 sec. C 27 sec.
Lancaster Lane and North Access (1) A/A 2 sec. A/A 7 sec.
Lancaster Lane and Pilgrim Lane/South Access (1) A/A 6 sec. A/A 6 sec.
36th Avenue and Lancaster Lane (1) A/C 20 sec. A/A 9 sec.
36th Avenue and Kilmer Lane (1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 9 sec.
36th Avenue at West TH 169 Ramps B 18 sec. B 11 sec.
36th Avenue at East TH 169 Ramps B 10 sec. B 10 sec.
(1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
Proposed Development
The proposed Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment is located in the southeast quadrant of the Rockford
Road and Nathan Lane/Lancaster Lane intersection in the City of Plymouth. The site is currently a
vacant neighborhood shopping center. Up until 2008, the former Four Season’s Mall parking lot was
utilized as a park-and-ride. Since 2008, the site has continued to informally operate as a park-and-ride.
A 100-space transit park-and-ride will be incorporated in the development plans and will coincide with
the full closure of the Nathan Lane Park-and-Ride, located north of Cub Foods. As previously
mentioned, the site is expected to be fully built by year 2018. Therefore the proposed development
was evaluated under year 2019 conditions (one year post construction).
The current development proposal (shown in Figure 5) consists of two hotels (one 95-room and one
100-room), approximately 77,967 square feet of retail space (including restaurant, coffee shop, bank,
and general retail uses), and 19,860 square feet of office space. A 139-unit senior housing development
is also planned for this site, but will be built by a separate developer. It should be noted that based on
discussions with City staff, 65-units were assumed to be independent living and 74-units were assumed
to be for assisted living/memory care. For purposes of this study, the senior housing development
was assumed to be built under year 2019 conditions.
Year 2019 Build Conditions
To help determine impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts were
developed for year 2019 conditions (i.e. one year after expected completion). Year 2019 build
condition traffic forecasts are the resultant of the year 2019 no build traffic forecasts and traffic
generated by the proposed development. The evaluation of the year 2019 build condition includes
traffic forecast development and an intersection capacity analysis.
Page 57
1257+1RUWK+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),*B6LWH3ODQFGU 'HFHPEHU6LWH3ODQ)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\&LW\RI3O\PRXWK)LJXUHPage 58
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 11
Year 2019 Traffic Forecasts
To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, trip generation estimates
were developed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a daily basis. The estimates were developed
using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, except for the park-and-ride trip estimates, which
were based on local data collected at park-and-ride transit facilities in the Twin Cities area. Trip
generation estimates were also identified for the existing site for comparison purposes and to
understand the net new system trips.
As shown in Table 5, results of the trip generation estimates indicate the proposed development is
expected to generate approximately 500 a.m. peak hour, 573 p.m. peak hour, and 6,970 daily trips.
These trip generation estimates include a 20 percent multi-use reduction based on the methodology
described in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. This approach was applied to account for
vehicles utilizing more than one land use. Taking into account the existing site trips, the resultant net
new driveway counts are approximately 481 a.m. peak hour, 555 p.m. peak hour and 6,845 daily trips.
Table 5. Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size
A.M. Peak
Hour Trips
P.M. Peak
Hour Trips Daily
Trips In Out In Out
Existing
Actual Driveway Counts (1) N/A 18 1 5 13 125
Proposed (2)
Hotel (310) 100 rooms 25 17 24 24 654
Hotel (311) 95 rooms 16 13 14 17 372
High-Turnover Restaurant (932)) 16,409 SF 78 64 78 52 1,669
Coffee/Donut Shop (912) 1,696 SF 75 72 28 28 1,375
Drive-In Bank (912) 2 drive-thru lanes 9 6 26 27 223
General Retail (820) 57,746 SF 27 17 82 89 1,973
Office (710) 19,860 SF 22 3 4 20 175
Park-and-Ride (3) 100 spaces 35 2 3 31 193
Senior Housing (252) 65 units 4 7 7 6 179
Assisted Living (254) 74 beds 5 3 6 7 157
Subtotal 296 204 272 301 6,970
Existing Trips (-18) (-1) (-5) (-13) (-125)
Net New System Trips 278 203 267 288 6,845
(1) Based on a combination of actual driveway counts collected in August 2016 and ITE estimates (daily only).
(2) A 20-percent multi-use trip reduction was applied to the proposed land use trip generation estimates.
(3)Park-and-ride trips were generated based on data collected at other Twin-Cities park-and-ride transit facilities.
Page 59
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 12
A portion of the development trips are expected to be from vehicles already traveling along
Rockford Road or TH 169 that will now divert their trip to the proposed development before
continuing on to their destination (i.e. pass-by trips). Pass-by percentages for each land use from the
ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition were utilized as well as engineering judgment. Pass-by trips
were applied to trips generated by restaurant (23 percent), coffee shop (70 percent), bank (32 percent),
and retail (34 percent) uses. No pass-by percentages were applied to trips generated by the hotel,
office, senior housing, or park-and-ride transit facility.
To determine how vehicles are expected to travel throughout the study network, a directional
distribution was developed for the proposed development. The proposed land uses are expected to
have unique directional distributions based on the type of patrons expected (regional, local, or park-
and-ride trip). In general office, hotel, and residential land uses are expected to have a regional
directional distribution since patrons typically travel farther distances to these types of uses. Retail,
restaurant, coffee shop, and bank patrons are expected to have a local/community based directional
distribution due to the proximity to their residences. The park-and-ride directional distribution is
based on rider information provided by Metro Transit.
The trips generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distributions shown
in Figure 6, which was developed based on existing travel patterns, ridership data, and engineering
judgment. The resultant year 2019 peak hour traffic forecasts, which includes the general background
growth and traffic generated by the planned Pilgrim Elementary School and proposed development,
are shown in Figure 7. It should be noted that the year 2019 build traffic volumes account for the
closure of the existing Nathan Lane Park-and-Ride.
Year 2019 Intersection Capacity Analysis
To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate the year 2019 traffic forecasts, an
intersection capacity analysis was completed. Results of the year 2019 intersection capacity analysis
shown in Table 6 indicate that the study intersections are expected to operate at an overall LOS C or
better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing traffic controls and geometry, except at
the Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane intersection, which is expected to operate at an
overall LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. To address the operational issues the signal timing splits
were optimized at the Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane intersection. As shown in
Table 6 with the signal timing improvements, the Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane
intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS C during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Page 60
5RFNIRUG5RDG &RXQW\5RDG 1DWKDQ/DQH/DQFDVWHU/DQH3LOJULP/DQHWK$YHQXH
.LOPHU/DQHWK$YHQXH
+LOOVERUR$YHQXH1257+1RUWK
>@
>@
+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),*B'LUHFWLRQDO'LVWULEXWLRQFGU
>@
>@
>@
>@
>@
/(*(1'
;;
;;
>;;@
5HJLRQDO7UDIILF'LVWULEXWLRQ
/RFDO7UDIILF'LVWULEXWLRQ
3DUNDQG5LGH7UDIILF'LVWULEXWLRQ
'HFHPEHU
'LUHFWLRQDO'LVWULEXWLRQ
)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\
&LW\RI3O\PRXWK
)LJXUH
>@
3URMHFW
/RFDWLRQ
Page 61
5RFNIRUG5RDG &RXQW\5RDG 1DWKDQ/DQH/DQFDVWHU/DQH3LOJUL
P/
D
QH
WK$YHQXH
.LOPHU/DQHWK$YHQXH
+LOOVERUR$YHQXH1)URQWDJH5G
/(*(1'
;;
;;
<HDU (VWLPDWHG$03HDN+RXU
7UDIILF9ROXPHV
<HDU (VWLPDWHG303HDN+RXU
7UDIILF9ROXPHV
6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6LGH6WUHHW6WRS&RQWURO,QWHUVHFWLRQ
<HDU %XLOG&RQGLWLRQ(VWLPDWHG
$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIILF
1257+1RUWK
&6$+ 1DWKDQ/Q/DQFDVWHU/Q
/DQFDVWHU/Q1RUWK$FFHVV
'ULYHZD\
/DQFDV
WH
U
/Q
6RXW
K
$
F
F
H
V
V
3LOJUL
P
/
Q
+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),*B %XLOG&RQGLWLRQVFGU
'HFHPEHU
<HDU %XLOG&RQGLWLRQV
)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\
&LW\RI3O\PRXWK
)LJXUH
;;;;
WK$YH /DQFDVWHU/Q
WK$YH
.LOPHU/Q
WK$YH 1%7+ 5DPSV
WK$YH 6%7+ 5DPSV
3DUNLQJ/RW$FFHVV 1DWKDQ/Q1)URQWDJH5G
Page 62
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 15
Table 6. Year 2019 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis
Intersection
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
No
Improvements
Signal Timing
Improvements
No
Improvements
Signal Timing
Improvements
LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay)
Nathan Lane and Frontage Road A (5 sec.) A (5 sec.) A (7 sec.) A (7 sec.)
Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane C (29 sec.) C (28 sec.) E (67 sec.) C (31 sec.)
Lancaster Lane and North Access (1) A/A (6 sec.) A/A (5 sec.) A/A (11 sec.) A/C (15 sec.)
Lancaster Lane and Pilgrim Lane/South Access (1) A/A (8 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (8 sec.)
36th Avenue and Lancaster Lane (1) A/C (22 sec.) A/C (24 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (9 sec.)
36th Avenue and Kilmer Lane (1) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) A/B (11 sec.) A/B (14 sec.)
36th Avenue at West TH 169 Ramps B (18 sec.) B (18 sec.) B (11 sec.) B (11 sec.)
36th Avenue at East TH 169 Ramps A (9 sec.) A (9 sec.) B (10 sec.) B (10 sec.)
While no significant queues or side-street delay are expected under year 2019 build conditions once
the signal timing improvements have been implemented, the following should be noted at the
Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane intersection:
•Southbound queues are expected to extend approximately 200 feet during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours respectively (also occurs under existing and year 2019 no build conditions). These queues
occasionally (i.e. less than five percent of the peak hour) impact the Nathan Lane and Frontage
Road intersection.
•Westbound left-turn queues are expected to extend beyond the available left-turn lane storage
under both a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions (95th percentile queues estimated to be 240 feet
and 260 feet during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively). The existing westbound left-turn
lane has approximately 200 feet of storage. To reduce these queues the westbound left-turn lane
should be extended by a minimum of 100 feet (total of 300 feet of storage).
Year 2036 Conditions
To understand the long-term traffic operations in the study area year 2036 conditions were reviewed
(year 2036 represents 20-year forecasts). The evaluation of the year 2036 no build and build condition
includes traffic forecast development and an intersection capacity analysis.
Year 2036 Traffic Forecasts
To account for long-term general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half
(0.5) percent was applied to the year 2019 no build peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2036
background traffic forecasts. This growth rate was developed based on a review of the historical traffic
volumes (trend line analysis), Hennepin County Forecasted Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic (ADT),
and year 2040 traffic forecasts developed for the Blue Line Light Rail Transit (BLRT) study.
Page 63
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 16
In addition to background traffic growth, the year 2036 traffic forecasts includes trips generated by
the planned Pilgrim Elementary School (no build and build conditions) and the proposed development
(build conditions only). Resultant year 2036 no build and build condition traffic volumes are shown
in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively.
Year 2036 Intersection Capacity Analysis
To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2036 no build and build
traffic forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software.
It should be noted that the signal timing and westbound left-turn lane improvements at the Rockford
Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane intersection were assumed to be implemented under year
2036 build conditions. Signal timing optimization was also assumed at the 36th Avenue and TH 169
interchange intersections under year 2036 conditions.
Results of the intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 7 indicate that all study intersections are
expected to operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing
traffic controls and geometry. No significant queues or side-street delay are expected under year 2036
conditions. However, it should be noted that during the p.m. peak hour under year 2036 build
conditions, westbound left-turn queues are expected to extend approximately 300 feet. Furthermore,
the southbound queues identified under existing and year 2019 conditions at the Rockford Road and
Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane intersection are expected to increase under year 2036 conditions for
both no build and build conditions. The increase is expected to be approximately 10 to 15 feet.
Table 7. Year 2036 Intersection Capacity Analysis
Intersection
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
No Build Build No Build Build
LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay)
Nathan Lane and Frontage Road A (6 sec.) A (6 sec.) A (7 sec.) A (8 sec.)
Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane C (27 sec.) C (27 sec.) C (28 sec.) C (33 sec.)
Lancaster Lane and North Access (1) A/A (2 sec.) A/A (6 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) A/C (15 sec.)
Lancaster Lane and Pilgrim Lane/South Access (1) A/A (6 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) A/A (7 sec.) A/B (10 sec.)
36th Avenue and Lancaster Lane (1) A/D (26 sec.) A/D (29 sec.) A/A (9 sec.) A/B (13 sec.)
36th Avenue and Kilmer Lane (1) A/B (11 sec.) A/C (17 sec.) A/B (12 sec.) A/C (15 sec.)
36th Avenue at West TH 169 Ramps C (22 sec.) C (23 sec.) B (12 sec.) B (12 sec.)
36th Avenue at East TH 169 Ramps B (14 sec.) B (14 sec.) B (10 sec.) B (10 sec.)
(1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
Page 64
5RFNIRUG5RDG &RXQW\5RDG 1DWKDQ/DQH/DQFDVWHU/DQH3LOJUL
P/
D
QH
WK$YHQXH
.LOPHU/DQHWK$YHQXH
+LOOVERUR$YHQXH1)URQWDJH5G
/(*(1'
;;
;;
<HDU(VWLPDWHG$03HDN+RXU
7UDIILF9ROXPHV
<HDU(VWLPDWHG303HDN+RXU
7UDIILF9ROXPHV
6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6LGH6WUHHW6WRS&RQWURO,QWHUVHFWLRQ
<HDU%XLOG&RQGLWLRQ(VWLPDWHG
$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIILF
1257+1RUWK
&6$+ 1DWKDQ/Q/DQFDVWHU/Q
/DQFDVWHU/Q1RUWK$FFHVV
'ULYHZD\
/DQFDV
WH
U
/Q
6RXW
K
$
F
F
H
V
V
3LOJUL
P
/
Q
+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),*B 1R%XLOG&RQGLWLRQVFGU
'HFHPEHU
<HDU1R%XLOG&RQGLWLRQV
)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\
&LW\RI3O\PRXWK
)LJXUH
;;;;
WK$YH /DQFDVWHU/Q
WK$YH
.LOPHU/Q
WK$YH 1%7+ 5DPSV
WK$YH 6%7+ 5DPSV
3DUNLQJ/RW$FFHVV 1DWKDQ/Q1)URQWDJH5G
Page 65
5RFNIRUG5RDG &RXQW\5RDG 1DWKDQ/DQH/DQFDVWHU/DQH3LOJUL
P/
D
QH
WK$YHQXH
.LOPHU/DQHWK$YHQXH
+LOOVERUR$YHQXH1)URQWDJH5G
/(*(1'
;;
;;
<HDU(VWLPDWHG$03HDN+RXU
7UDIILF9ROXPHV
<HDU(VWLPDWHG303HDN+RXU
7UDIILF9ROXPHV
6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6LGH6WUHHW6WRS&RQWURO,QWHUVHFWLRQ
<HDU%XLOG&RQGLWLRQ(VWLPDWHG
$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIILF
1257+1RUWK
&6$+ 1DWKDQ/Q/DQFDVWHU/Q
/DQFDVWHU/Q1RUWK$FFHVV
'ULYHZD\
/DQFDV
WH
U
/Q
6RXW
K
$
F
F
H
V
V
3LOJUL
P
/
Q
+ ?3URMHFWV? ?76?)LJXUHV?),* B%XLOG&RQGLWLRQVFGU
'HFHPEHU
<HDU%XLOG&RQGLWLRQV
)RXU6HDVRQ¶V0DOO5HGHYHORSPHQW7UDIILF6WXG\
&LW\RI3O\PRXWK
)LJXUH
;;;;
WK$YH /DQFDVWHU/Q
WK$YH
.LOPHU/Q
WK$YH 1%7+ 5DPSV
WK$YH 6%7+ 5DPSV
3DUNLQJ/RW$FFHVV 1DWKDQ/Q1)URQWDJH5G
Page 66
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 19
Site Plan Review
A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential
improvements with regard to sight distance, pedestrian/bicyclist facilities, traffic circulation, and the
parking layout. Based on this review, the following issues were identified that should be discussed
further prior to implementation of improvements.
Sight Distance
Based on field observations, there is adequate sight distance at the study intersections and proposed
access locations to clearly identify approaching vehicles. Special consideration should be made to limit
any sight distance impacts from future structures, landscaping, and signing.
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Facilities
There is an existing trail along the east side of Lancaster Lane between Rockford Road and
36th Avenue. The proposed site plan includes a path along the east side of Lancaster Lane for the
extent of the property limit, which will provide connections to the proposed land uses.
Sidewalks/paths connecting parking areas to proposed land uses are also indicated on the site plan.
Traffic Circulation
Heavy commercial vehicles (i.e. trucks/buses) are expected to enter the proposed development via
both the north and south access locations. Turning movements should be reviewed to ensure that
these vehicles will have adequate accommodations to negotiate internal roadways. Furthermore,
tenants should coordinate with delivery companies to reduce potential onsite impacts. The movement
of general passenger vehicles within the proposed development is not expected to be an issue.
Parking Layout
No issues were identified with the proposed parking lot layout.
Alternative Access Review
A right-in/right-out access on Lancaster Lane located approximately 490 feet south of Rockford Road
is being considered for the proposed development. A review of this access alternative indicates the
following:
•The access would primarily serve the office building located in the northwest corner of the
proposed development. The access would reduce the number of vehicles circulating the site
internally, which would reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts in the parking lot.
•This access is expected to generate a low volume of trips. Vehicles are not expected to experience
traffic operational issues entering/exiting the driveway.
Page 67
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 20
•Northbound queues from the Rockford Road/Lancaster Lane intersection were reviewed during
the peak hour to determine the likelihood of queues extending to the proposed right-in/right-out
access. Based on this review, the northbound queues along Lancaster Lane are expected to extend
approximately 250 feet, which does not impact the alternative access.
•The access was also reviewed for safety. Based on the proposed location, vehicles entering/exiting
the driveway are expected to have adequate sight distance.
Summary and Conclusions
The following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration:
1. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently
operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. No significant queues
or side-street delay were identified.
2. Year 2019 no build condition traffic forecasts account for general background growth as well as
trips generated by the Pilgrim Elementary School, which plans to reopen in the year 2017.
3. Results of the year 2019 no build condition intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study
intersections are expected to operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours. No significant queues or side-street delay are expected.
4. The current development proposal consists of two hotels, approximately 77,967 square feet of
retail space (including restaurant, coffee shop, bank, and general retail uses), and 19,860 square
feet of office space.
a. A 139-unit senior housing development is also planned for this site.
b. A 100-space transit park-and-ride will be incorporated in the development plans and will
coincide with the full closure of the Nathan Lane Park-and-Ride, located north of Cub Foods.
5. The proposed development plans to utilize the two existing access locations on Lancaster Lane to
the former Four Season’s Mall.
6. Results of the trip generation estimates indicate the proposed development is expected to generate
approximately 500 a.m. peak hour, 573 p.m. peak hour, and 6,970 daily trips. These trip generation
estimates include a 20 percent multi-use reduction. Taking into account the existing site trips, the
resultant net new driveway counts are approximately 481 a.m. peak hour, 555 p.m. peak hour and
6,845 daily trips.
7. Results of the year 2019 build condition intersection capacity analysis indicate that the study
intersections are expected to operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours except at the Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane intersection, which is
expected to operate at an overall LOS E during the p.m. peak hour.
Page 68
Steve Juetten, City of Plymouth December 14, 2016
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Traffic Study Page 21
a. To address the operational issues the signal timing splits should be optimized at the
Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane intersection. With the signal timing
modifications, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS C.
b. Westbound left-turn queues at the Rockford Road and Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane
intersection are expected to extend beyond the available left-turn lane storage under both a.m.
and p.m. peak hour conditions. To reduce the likelihood of queues impacting through
traffic, the westbound left-turn lane should be extended by a minimum of 100 feet for
a total storage of 300 feet.
8. Year 2036 no build and build condition traffic forecasts were developed to understand the long-
term traffic operations in the study area.
9. Results of the year 2036 no build and build condition intersection capacity analysis indicate that
the study intersections are expected to operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours. No significant queues or side-street delay are expected under year 2036
conditions.
10. A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential
improvements with regard to sight distance, pedestrian/bicyclist facilities, traffic circulation, and
the parking layout.
a. There is adequate sight distance at the study intersections and proposed access locations to
clearly identify approaching vehicles. Special consideration should be made to limit any sight
distance impacts from future structures, landscaping, and signing.
b. Turning movements should be reviewed to ensure that heavy commercial vehicles (i.e. trucks/
buses) will have adequate accommodations to negotiate internal roadways.
c. No major issues were identified with the proposed pedestrian/bicyclist facilities or the
proposed parking lot layout.
11. A right-in/right-out access on Lancaster Lane located approximately 490 feet south of Rockford
Road is being considered for the proposed development. No traffic or safety issues are expected
if this access is constructed.
H:\Projects\09000\9345\TS\Report\FINAL - Dec 2016\9345_FINAL_Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment TS_1611214.docx
Page 69
1
Memorandum
Date: 12/27/2016
To: John Hink - Solution Blue
Copy: Apurva Patel - Rock Hill Management; Shawn Drill, AICP – City of Plymouth
From: Kevin Mackey, PE
RE: Agora Site Parking Analysis – Plymouth, MN
Agora Proposed Site Parking Requirement Evaluation
Executive Summary
This memorandum was completed to document parking analysis for the proposed Agora site in
Plymouth, Minnesota.
Analysis described in this memorandum indicates that the proposed 941 parking spaces shown
on the project site plan is sufficient. The 941 proposed spaces are less than the 1,116 spaces
required by City ordinance, however it is estimated that peak parking demand at the site would
be between 779 and 1,036 vehicles, with the higher end estimate being conservative. This is
conservative since different land uses have peak parking demand at different times of the day.
Parking Analysis
Parking analyses completed for the Agora site include:
• Number of parking spaces indicated on site plan
• Parking requirements per City of Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
• Estimation of actual peak parking demand
Number of Spaces Provided on Site Plan
As proposed, the site would have 941 parking spaces.
Page 70
2
City Parking Requirements
Based on land uses on the proposed site layout (see Attachment A), the City Zoning Ordinance
requires 1,116 parking spaces. This is more than the proposed 941 parking spaces shown on the
site layout. For this reason, KLJ was asked to analyze parking generation data to estimate actual
parking demand at the site.
Parking requirements per the City Zoning Ordinance for each land use within the site and the total
parking requirements can be seen in Table 1 at the end of this memorandum.
Shared Parking
Cities often allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces if multiple land uses use a
shared parking area. The rationale for this is that users may park in one location within the site,
then walk to different uses within the site (i.e. park their vehicle, enter a store, walk to a
restaurant, then return to their car).
The City of Plymouth allows for a 10 percent reduction in the number of required stalls for shared
parking. The 1,116 space requirement described above takes this 10 percent reduction into
consideration (1,217 spaces required without shared parking reduction). This is higher than the
941 spaces shown on the site layout. Parking requirements by land use that are adjusted down for
shared parking can be seen in Table 1.
Parking Demand Analysis
To estimate peak parking demand for the proposed site, KLJ analyzed data in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Parking Generation manual. ITE Parking Generation provides data for
peak parking demand generated by various land uses. This data is based on field-collected data
and is presented in terms of the peak number of parking spaces occupied by people at a given land
use.
Based on ITE Parking Generation, the site would have 779 parked vehicles under peak conditions.
This is less than the 941 parking spaces shown on the site plan. Parking generation analysis
assumes the peak parking generation for each land use, then sums these totals for an overall
number of parked vehicles throughout the site at the peak. Note that parking demand analysis
assumes that 200 spaces in the parking ramp (339 total spaces in ramp) will be occupied by park
and ride users, based on information in the Four Seasons Mall Park and Ride Study.
It should be noted that no specific parking generation data was available for the meeting space
use in Building 6 (hotel), however ITE Parking Generation acknowledges that many hotels have
such conference/meeting spaces. This is further addressed in a section below.
Estimated parking generation by land use can be seen in Table 1.
Page 71
3
Notable Differences Between Parking Generation Data and City Requirements
As seen in Table 1, Buildings 6 and 7 were found to have the largest discrepancies between the
estimated parking generation and City parking requirements.
For Building 6 (100 room hotel with 8,000 sq. ft. of conference space), ITE Parking Generation
indicates 195 fewer occupied parking spaces than required by the City. This difference is primarily
attributable to the City Zoning Ordinance requiring one parking space per 40 square feet of
conference/meeting space.
For Building 7 (independent senior living, assisted senior living and memory care), ITE Parking
Generation indicates 99 fewer occupied parking spaces than required by the City. KLJ finds the
ITE estimated parking generation is reasonable since this is based on field-collected data.
Judgement-Based Adjustments to ITE Parking Generation
KLJ adjusted parking generation estimates for the hotel land uses to address the discrepancies
discussed above (especially for Building 6). Adjustments were made as follows:
• Building 2 – 95 room hotel
o Adjust up to 98 parking spaces (76 spaces estimated using ITE data)
Assume one space per hotel room and three spaces for employees
• Building 6 – 100 room hotel with 8,000 square feet of conference/meeting space
o Adjust up to 316 parking spaces (80 spaces estimated using ITE data)
Assume one space per hotel room and five spaces for employees
Assume maximum occupancy of 400 people in conference/meeting space
• Assume 1.9 people per vehicle (based on data in 2009 National
Household Travel Survey)
Adjusted ITE Parking Generation-based estimates result in an overall total of 1036 occupied
spaces.
Summary of Parking Analysis
The 941 proposed spaces are less than the 1,116 spaces required by City ordinance, however it is
estimated that peak parking demand at the site would be between 779 and 1,036 vehicles, with
the higher end estimate being conservative. This is conservative due to shared parking between
land uses and the fact that different land uses have peak parking demand at different times of the
day, especially given the presence of the park-and-ride which will typically only be used during
working hours on weekdays (see Attachment B for details). As such, the 941 proposed parking
spaces are sufficient for the proposed site.
Estimated parking demand, City parking requirements and the number of proposed parking spaces
on the site layout can be seen in Table 1 below.
Page 72
4
Table 1 – Summary of Parking Analysis
1 Office Administrative Offices 9,860 SF 28 28 36 32 20
2 95-Room Hotel Hotel 95 Rooms 76 98 108 97 68
3 Retail Retail 12,000 SF 71 71 54 49
4 Retail Retail 6,000 SF 24 24 27 24
Restaurant 5,400 SF 57 57 99 90
Office 10,000 SF 28 28 36 32
Retail 28,475 SF 113 113 128 115
Hotel 100 Rooms
Meeting/Conference Space 8,000 SF
Senior Independent Living 65 Units 33 33 98 88
Senior Assisted Living 50 Units 21 21 75 68
Senior Memory Care 24 Units 10 10 8 7
9 Parking Ramp/Park and Ride4 Park and ride parking, additional parking for other uses 339 Stalls 200 200 200 200 339
10 Retail Retail 7,435 SF 29 29 34 31 (Included in Bldg 5 total)
11 Bank Bank w/ Drive-Through Teller 2,116 SF 8 8 8 7 16
Total 779 1036 1217 1116 941
Footnotes:
1. Number of occupied stalls during peak operating hours
2. Hotel and conference space parking generation adjusted based on engineering judgement (see below). All other uses unchanged.
3. Assumed 10% reduction for shared parking between land uses
4. ITE parking generation analysis assumes 200 parking spaces will be occupied by park and ride by 2030 (based on information in Four Seasons Transit Study).
Adjusted ITE Parking Generation Estimates:
Building 2 - 95 Room Hotel: Adjusted to 98 spaces (95 occupied rooms with 1 occupied space each, 3 additional spaces for employees)
Building 6 - 100 Room Hotel with 8,000 sf conference room: Adjusted to 316 spaces
Building #
on Site
Plan
Space Type Building Function
Estimated Peak
Occupied Spaces
(ITE Parking
Generation)1
Adjusted ITE
Estimates2
Baseline
Parking Required
by City
Adjusted
Parking Required
by City3
Parking
Provided/Reserved
on Site Layout
Size
7 Senior Residential
80 316
5 Mixed-Use
6
(100 occupied rooms with 1 occupied space each, 5 additional spaces for employees. Assumed maximum meeting room occupancy of 400 people, with 1.9
people per parked vehicle, per National Household Travel Survey data for social acitivites)
235
89
109
65
306 275100-Room Hotel
Page 73
!"#$ #!##"%"&&’()’)))*’)’)()*)’ !#" !"+,"""$"$,-./’&/""+""$#"-.#""""#00/ "!"##"# !"# !$"$%%" &’’"# (# ())*)%+))*)) !$")$#,"!-.$!+.""(/($+$/!!(!(!(!0-.# !’0!# .0!$’(!&0",# 0’.$0!$"$’0!" +"+1 ’!.(0!2!0# $3 2451 67 68968,:,,5;<,, 82:!$"1)# (=()%>%>%>>%;*;%%21%),21 :>6%*>>%::281 591 25561 ,>*>%’012+0) !"# $"%&’ ()*+( ,-./)*0. .),*0 0+//(()*+( - 1 234-- 1 5526-- 5! !5!1!-5- 1 5!!35- 1 637563 - 1 !358!-!84! !55918 51- 7555!1556918)595565!5-30,:,; !!8<-!=>0’:(;553-78555565!- 5!5156- 5!!5115555587 !!555!-?) $!(25561 ,,>>%6 25?561 ,,*>>%25?561 ,,%>%>%25?561 ,,>*>%8 ? !" #$$!%&$’$! !$$()#$&* *"’!% *"$+",$-".- /+++ 0 ,11111+ !"23+ "* 4!!5$$61"7217" * 23+!23+ %"0 !"89*89:;1’$1+.$#+21%.1#+$@ %"=A> B5"01&2+001&2+0)&.3344563789:33;5:<5=>4=<?3"3?@595=?+AB=4C634??;88473733=@3=:Page 74
Attachment B – Estimated Parking Occupancy by Time Period
Assumptions:
• Proposed Square Footage
o Based on site plan
• Baseline Required Stalls
o From City of Plymouth Ordinance (prior to application of 10% shared parking reduction)
• Estimated Parking Occupancy
o Professional judgement used to estimate parking occupancy by time period, using city parking
requirements as a baseline to be conservative (limited data available since ITE data tends to
apply to peak hour, not necessarily large time periods)
Hotel parking occupancy reduced during working hours on business days
Limited office parking occupancy during evenings/weekends
Park and ride spaces not occupied on evenings/weekends
Meeting space parking occupancy highest on weekends and evenings (when park and
ride and office parking occupancy is limited)
• Hotel Cross Use
o Number of hotel guests also using meeting space based on engineering judgement (no available
data)
Building Use Proposed
Sqft
Baseline
Required Stalls
(Without 10%
Parking
Reduction
Applied)
Required Stalls
After 10%
Parking
Reduction
Estimated
Occupied
Parking
Weekday
7AM to 5PM
Estimated
Occupied
Parking
Weekday
5PM to 7AM
Estimated
Parking
Occupied
Weekend
7AM to 5PM
Estimated
Parking
Occupied
Weekend
5PM to 7AM
Building 1 Office 9860 36 32 36 2 0 0
Building 2 Hotel 95 Rooms 108 97 30 98 108 98
Buildings 3 & 4 Retail 18000 81 73 81 81 81 81
Building 5-1 Restaurant 5400 99 90 92 99 99 99
Building 5-2 Office 10000 36 33 36 10 0 0
Building 5-3 Retail 28475 128 115 110 128 128 128
Building 6-1 Hotel-2 100 Rooms 126 113 40 100 103 103
Building 6-2 Meeting Area 8000 180 162 100 150 250 250
Building 7-1 Senior Independent 65 Units 98 88 98 92 92 92
Building 7-2 Senior Assisted 50 Units 75 68 75 75 75 75
Building 7-3 Senior Memory 24 Units 8 7 8 8 8 8
Building 9 Parking Structure 339 Stalls 200 200 200 0 0 0
Building 10 Retail 7435 34 31 31 34 34 34
Building 11 Bank 2116 8 7 8 8 8 8
Total Required -1217 1116 945 885 986 976
Total Provided on Site -941 941 941 941 941 941
Difference ---175 -4 56 -45 -35
40
25 10 75 75
21 66 30
Hotel Cross Use with Meeting Use (Hotel
Guests using the meeting room.)
Difference After Considering Hotel Cross Use
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE
TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT 4200 LANCASTER LANE, AND TO ESTABLISH A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (2016075)
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
Section 1. Amendment of City Code. Chapter 21 of the City Code of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, adopted December 18, 1996 as amended, is hereby amended by changing the classification
on the City of Plymouth Zoning Map from C-2 (neighborhood commercial) to PUD (planned unit
development) with respect to property currently legally described as follows:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition lying Westerly of Hennepin County
State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32.
Also: A 200-foot by 200-foot tract adjacent to the Northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, and
labeled “EXCEPTION” on the plat of record of Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, being described as
follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza Addition; thence Easterly
along the Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a distance of 269.01 feet; thence at a right angle
South a distance of 7 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described;
thence continuing South along the last described course a distance of 103 feet; thence Southerly
along a tangential curve to the left, with a radius of 834.3 feet, a distance of 97.23 feet; thence
Easterly parallel with the Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a distance of 194.34 feet; thence
at a right angle North a distance of 200 feet to a point 7 feet South of the Southerly line of
County Road No. 9; thence Westerly parallel with Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a
distance of 200 feet to the actual point of beginning.
Also: The North 48 feet of Lot 1, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition.
Also: The North 55 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza Addition.
Also: The North 55 feet of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 2nd Addition.
Together with that part of Old Hennepin County Road No. 9 in that part of Section 13, Township
118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of the Northerly extension of the
Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane, as platted Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, and lying
Easterly and Southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the Northerly lot line of Lot 4, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 2nd Addition,
distant 46.35 feet Westerly of the Northeast corner of said Lot 4 (said Northerly line has
Page 95
Ordinance 2017-
2016075
Page 2
assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 26 minutes 06 seconds East); thence North 41 degrees 33
minutes 47 seconds East, a distance of 58.50 feet, more or less, to the South line of Hennepin
County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32; thence Easterly along said Southerly line of C.S.A.H.
No. 18 to its intersection with the Northerly extension of the Westerly right-of-way of said
Lancaster Lane and there terminating.
Together with that part of County Road No. 9 (Rockford Road) lying Easterly of the Northerly
extension of the Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane and Westerly of the Westerly right-of-
way of County State Aid Highway No. 18, all lying in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota as vacated public roadway.
Together with that part of North 55 feet of Nathan Lane lying South of the South right-of-way
line of County Road No. 9 in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22.
Together with that part of Lancaster Lane described as; Beginning at the intersection of the
Easterly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane and the Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9;
thence Southerly along the Easterly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane a distance of 200.23 feet;
thence Northwesterly to a point on the Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane distant 48.00
feet Southerly of Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9; thence Northerly along Westerly
right-of-way of Lancaster Lane to Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9; thence Easterly
to point of beginning and there terminating; all lying in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat
32 according to the recorded plat thereof and Northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the most Southwesterly corner of said Lot 3, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th
Addition; thence Northwesterly along the right-of-way line of Lancaster Lane, according to the
recorded plat thereof, to the most Westerly corner of said Lot 3, Block 1; thence Northeasterly
along a Northwesterly line of said Lot 3, Block 1, for a distance of 100.00 feet to the actual point
of beginning of the line to be described; thence Easterly parallel with the South line of said Lot 3,
Block 1, to the Westerly line of said Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32 and
there terminating.
Page 96
Ordinance 2017-
2016075
Page 3
Section 2. Amendment of City Code. Chapter 21 of the City Code of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, adopted December 18, 1996 as amended, is hereby amended to add Section 21655.65, as
follows:
21655.65 AGORA PUD:
Subd. 1. Legal Description. This PUD is currently legally described as follows:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition lying Westerly of Hennepin
County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32.
Also: A 200-foot by 200-foot tract adjacent to the Northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block
1, and labeled “EXCEPTION” on the plat of record of Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition,
being described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza Addition; thence
Easterly along the Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a distance of 269.01 feet; thence
at a right angle South a distance of 7 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of
land to be described; thence continuing South along the last described course a distance
of 103 feet; thence Southerly along a tangential curve to the left, with a radius of 834.3
feet, a distance of 97.23 feet; thence Easterly parallel with the Southerly line of County
Road No. 9, a distance of 194.34 feet; thence at a right angle North a distance of 200 feet
to a point 7 feet South of the Southerly line of County Road No. 9; thence Westerly
parallel with Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a distance of 200 feet to the actual
point of beginning.
Also: The North 48 feet of Lot 1, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition.
Also: The North 55 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza Addition.
Also: The North 55 feet of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 2nd Addition.
Together with that part of Old Hennepin County Road No. 9 in that part of Section 13,
Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of the Northerly
extension of the Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane, as platted Plymouth Plaza 4th
Addition, and lying Easterly and Southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the Northerly lot line of Lot 4, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 2nd
Addition, distant 46.35 feet Westerly of the Northeast corner of said Lot 4 (said Northerly
line has assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 26 minutes 06 seconds East); thence North
41 degrees 33 minutes 47 seconds East, a distance of 58.50 feet, more or less, to the
South line of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32; thence Easterly along
said Southerly line of C.S.A.H. No. 18 to its intersection with the Northerly extension of
the Westerly right-of-way of said Lancaster Lane and there terminating.
Together with that part of County Road No. 9 (Rockford Road) lying Easterly of the
Northerly extension of the Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane and Westerly of the
Page 97
Ordinance 2017-
2016075
Page 4
Westerly right-of-way of County State Aid Highway No. 18, all lying in Section 13,
Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota as vacated public roadway.
Together with that part of North 55 feet of Nathan Lane lying South of the South right-of-
way line of County Road No. 9 in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22.
Together with that part of Lancaster Lane described as; Beginning at the intersection of
the Easterly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane and the Southerly right-of-way of County
Road No. 9; thence Southerly along the Easterly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane a
distance of 200.23 feet; thence Northwesterly to a point on the Westerly right-of-way of
Lancaster Lane distant 48.00 feet Southerly of Southerly right-of-way of County Road
No. 9; thence Northerly along Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane to Southerly
right-of-way of County Road No. 9; thence Easterly to point of beginning and there
terminating; all lying in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of Hennepin County State Aid
Highway No. 18, Plat 32 according to the recorded plat thereof and Northerly of the
following described line: Commencing at the most Southwesterly corner of said Lot 3,
Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition; thence Northwesterly along the right-of-way line
of Lancaster Lane, according to the recorded plat thereof, to the most Westerly corner of
said Lot 3, Block 1; thence Northeasterly along a Northwesterly line of said Lot 3, Block
1, for a distance of 100.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence Easterly parallel with the South line of said Lot 3, Block 1, to the Westerly line of
said Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32 and there terminating.
Subd. 2. Incorporated herein by reference are the Agora PUD plans received by the
city on December 9, 2016, except as may be amended by City Council Resolution 2017-___, on
file in the office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2016075.
Subd. 3. Allowable Uses. The uses permitted in this PUD shall include the
following:
• Lot 1 – Administrative/commercial office uses.
• Lot 2 – 95-room hotel without banquet/conference facilities.
• Lots 3-5 – A parking ramp and park-and-ride facility, and retail uses including one
brewpub, one dining restaurant, one delicatessen/coffee house without drive thru
and all other uses listed as “permitted,” “conditional,” and “uses by administrative
permit” listed in the C-2 zoning district except for “Offices/clinics for medical,
dental, or chiropractic services” unless it is demonstrated that adequate parking
would be available on the site.
• Lot 6 – 139-unit senior housing facility.
• Lot 7 – 100-room hotel with 8,000 square feet of banquet/conference space.
Page 98
Ordinance 2017-
2016075
Page 5
Subd. 4. Development Standards. Development standards shall be as indicated on
the approved PUD general plan, except as may be amended by City Council Resolution 2017-
____, on file in the office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2016075.
Section 3. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
ADOPTED by the Plymouth City Council this 17th day of January, 2017.
______________________________
Kelli Slavik, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Sandra R. Engdahl, City Clerk
Page 99
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE REZONING OF LAND
LOCATED AT 4200 LANCASTER LANE (2016075)
WHEREAS, Rock Hill Management, LLC has requested reclassification of the zoning from C-2
(neighborhood commercial) to PUD (planned unit development) for roughly 17.3 acres located at 4200
Lancaster Lane ; and
WHEREAS, the affected property is presently legally described as follows:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition lying Westerly of Hennepin County
State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32.
Also: A 200-foot by 200-foot tract adjacent to the Northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, and
labeled “EXCEPTION” on the plat of record of Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, being described as
follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza Addition; thence Easterly
along the Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a distance of 269.01 feet; thence at a right angle
South a distance of 7 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described;
thence continuing South along the last described course a distance of 103 feet; thence Southerly
along a tangential curve to the left, with a radius of 834.3 feet, a distance of 97.23 feet; thence
Easterly parallel with the Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a distance of 194.34 feet; thence
at a right angle North a distance of 200 feet to a point 7 feet South of the Southerly line of
County Road No. 9; thence Westerly parallel with Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a
distance of 200 feet to the actual point of beginning.
Also: The North 48 feet of Lot 1, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition.
Also: The North 55 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza Addition.
Also: The North 55 feet of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 2nd Addition.
Together with that part of Old Hennepin County Road No. 9 in that part of Section 13, Township
118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of the Northerly extension of the
Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane, as platted Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, and lying
Easterly and Southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the Northerly lot line of Lot 4, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 2nd Addition,
distant 46.35 feet Westerly of the Northeast corner of said Lot 4 (said Northerly line has
assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 26 minutes 06 seconds East); thence North 41 degrees 33
minutes 47 seconds East, a distance of 58.50 feet, more or less, to the South line of Hennepin
County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32; thence Easterly along said Southerly line of C.S.A.H.
No. 18 to its intersection with the Northerly extension of the Westerly right-of-way of said
Lancaster Lane and there terminating.
Page 100
Together with that part of County Road No. 9 (Rockford Road) lying Easterly of the Northerly
extension of the Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane and Westerly of the Westerly right-of-
way of County State Aid Highway No. 18, all lying in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota as vacated public roadway.
Together with that part of North 55 feet of Nathan Lane lying South of the South right-of-way
line of County Road No. 9 in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22.
Together with that part of Lancaster Lane described as; Beginning at the intersection of the
Easterly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane and the Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9;
thence Southerly along the Easterly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane a distance of 200.23 feet;
thence Northwesterly to a point on the Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane distant 48.00
feet Southerly of Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9; thence Northerly along Westerly
right-of-way of Lancaster Lane to Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9; thence Easterly
to point of beginning and there terminating; all lying in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat
32 according to the recorded plat thereof and Northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the most Southwesterly corner of said Lot 3, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th
Addition; thence Northwesterly along the right-of-way line of Lancaster Lane, according to the
recorded plat thereof, to the most Westerly corner of said Lot 3, Block 1; thence Northeasterly
along a Northwesterly line of said Lot 3, Block 1, for a distance of 100.00 feet to the actual point
of beginning of the line to be described; thence Easterly parallel with the South line of said Lot 3,
Block 1, to the Westerly line of said Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32 and
there terminating.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing
and recommends approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected land from C-2 to
PUD.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for reclassification of the zoning from
C-2 to PUD for roughly 17.3 acres legally described above, based on the following findings:
1. The proposed PUD zoning is consistent with comprehensive plan and other city policies and
plans.
2. The proposed PUD zoning would provide the city with a higher level of regulatory control
than could be achieved under conventional zoning.
3. The proposed development would incorporate common elements in the design and
materials for buildings, as well as for landscaping and the walkway system, in order to create
a unified development.
4. Adequate infrastructure would be available to support the proposed development.
Page 101
5. The land uses proposed for the PUD would fill market needs, pursuant to the Guiding
Principles established for redevelopment of the site.
ADOPTED by the City Council on this 17th day of January, 2017.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS.
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota,
certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on
January 17, 2017 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription
thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this _________ day of
_________________________, ______.
________________________________
City Clerk
Page 102
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUD GENERAL PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “AGORA”
FOR ROUGHLY 17.3 ACRES LOCATED AT 4200 LANCASTER LANE (2016075)
WHEREAS, Rock Hill Management, LLC has requested approval of a PUD general plan and
preliminary plat for property presently legally described as follows:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition lying Westerly of Hennepin County
State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32.
Also: A 200-foot by 200-foot tract adjacent to the Northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, and
labeled “EXCEPTION” on the plat of record of Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, being described as
follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza Addition; thence Easterly
along the Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a distance of 269.01 feet; thence at a right angle
South a distance of 7 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described;
thence continuing South along the last described course a distance of 103 feet; thence Southerly
along a tangential curve to the left, with a radius of 834.3 feet, a distance of 97.23 feet; thence
Easterly parallel with the Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a distance of 194.34 feet; thence
at a right angle North a distance of 200 feet to a point 7 feet South of the Southerly line of
County Road No. 9; thence Westerly parallel with Southerly line of County Road No. 9, a
distance of 200 feet to the actual point of beginning.
Also: The North 48 feet of Lot 1, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition.
Also: The North 55 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza Addition.
Also: The North 55 feet of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 2nd Addition.
Together with that part of Old Hennepin County Road No. 9 in that part of Section 13, Township
118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of the Northerly extension of the
Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane, as platted Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, and lying
Easterly and Southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the Northerly lot line of Lot 4, Block 5, Plymouth Plaza 2nd Addition,
distant 46.35 feet Westerly of the Northeast corner of said Lot 4 (said Northerly line has
assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 26 minutes 06 seconds East); thence North 41 degrees 33
minutes 47 seconds East, a distance of 58.50 feet, more or less, to the South line of Hennepin
County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32; thence Easterly along said Southerly line of C.S.A.H.
No. 18 to its intersection with the Northerly extension of the Westerly right-of-way of said
Lancaster Lane and there terminating.
Together with that part of County Road No. 9 (Rockford Road) lying Easterly of the Northerly
extension of the Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane and Westerly of the Westerly right-of-
way of County State Aid Highway No. 18, all lying in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota as vacated public roadway.
Page 103
Together with that part of North 55 feet of Nathan Lane lying South of the South right-of-way
line of County Road No. 9 in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22.
Together with that part of Lancaster Lane described as; Beginning at the intersection of the
Easterly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane and the Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9;
thence Southerly along the Easterly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane a distance of 200.23 feet;
thence Northwesterly to a point on the Westerly right-of-way of Lancaster Lane distant 48.00
feet Southerly of Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9; thence Northerly along Westerly
right-of-way of Lancaster Lane to Southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 9; thence Easterly
to point of beginning and there terminating; all lying in Section 13, Township 118, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat
32 according to the recorded plat thereof and Northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the most Southwesterly corner of said Lot 3, Block 1, Plymouth Plaza 4th
Addition; thence Northwesterly along the right-of-way line of Lancaster Lane, according to the
recorded plat thereof, to the most Westerly corner of said Lot 3, Block 1; thence Northeasterly
along a Northwesterly line of said Lot 3, Block 1, for a distance of 100.00 feet to the actual point
of beginning of the line to be described; thence Easterly parallel with the South line of said Lot 3,
Block 1, to the Westerly line of said Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 18, Plat 32 and
there terminating.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing
and recommends approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Rock Hill Management, LLC for a
PUD general plan and preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. A PUD general plan and preliminary plat is approved to allow a development that includes two
hotels, senior housing, commercial uses, and parking ramp with park-and-ride facility, in accordance
with the plans received by the City on December 9, 2016, except as may be amended by this
resolution.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon the applicant obtaining City Council approval of
the request to vacate an unused portion of Lancaster Lane right-of-way located south of Building 2
(Aloft Hotel).
3. Development standards for the PUD shall be as indicated on the plans received by the City on
December 9, 2016, except as may be amended by this resolution.
4. Prior to commencement of building removal, tree removal, grading, or other site preparation
work, the developer shall install and request inspection of silt fencing.
Page 104
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall: 1) submit and receive approval of the
required final plat application; and 2) submit and receive approval of the required PUD final plan for
the building.
6. In conjunction with submission of the final plat application, the developer shall submit a copy of
the declaration of easements, covenants, conditions, and restrictions (ECCR) for City review. The
ECCR document shall address responsibilities for maintenance, repair, and replacement of
developer-installed improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, water-quality features,
signage, and other similar or common site features.
7. Prior to recording the final plat, the applicant shall: 1) prepare recordable cross-access easements
for City review and approval for the private drives for all lots within the development that will be
recorded with the final plat; and 2) prepare recordable cross-parking easements for City review and
approval for all surface parking spaces within the development that will be recorded with the final
plat.
8. Prior to recording the final plat, the applicant shall:
a. Receive City approval of final construction plans, including those related to drainage and
treatment of runoff.
b. Remove the existing structure from the site. Demolition permits are required for removal of the
existing structure.
c. Convey Outlot A (City well house) to the City by warranty deed, free and clear of any and all
encumbrances.
d. Revise the plat to create a separate lot for the parking ramp if required by the City.
e. Revise/refine the overall landscaping plan to install additional plantings on the site in a manner
that provides additional buffering along Lancaster Lane.
f. Provide payment into the Community Planting Fund for any landscaping shortfall.
9. Prior to approval of the PUD final plans, the final landscaping plan for each building site shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Forester and City planning staff.
10. In conjunction with submission of the first PUD final plan application, the applicant shall submit a
lighting plan for the overall site that complies with the City’s lighting regulations. Lighting shall be
consistent throughout the development. Lighting fixtures at walkways, gathering spaces, building
fronts and entries shall be pedestrian-scaled, decorative, and not higher than 15 feet above grade.
11. The applicant shall coordinate the signal timing adjustments with Hennepin County, and shall be
responsible for 100 percent of the cost and construction to extend the westbound left turn lane on
County Road 9, pursuant to the recommendations of the traffic study. The required traffic
improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings on the site.
12. Prior to occupancy of any buildings on the site, all parking spaces (including the parking ramp) shall
be constructed, and the on-site ponding system shall be constructed. The exception is that the
senior housing building would be allowed occupancy provided that the on-site ponding system is
constructed, and that all parking shown under the senior housing building and on senior housing site
is constructed.
Page 105
13. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with City and watershed requirements pertaining to
drainage and treatment of runoff.
14. No outside storage or display of goods or merchandise shall be allowed in this development, with
the exception that a farmer’s market is allowable upon issuance of an administrative permit.
15. Trash and recyclables generated by this site shall be stored inside the buildings.
16. The use of outdoor loudspeakers shall be limited. Any outdoor loudspeaker system shall be
reviewed for compliance with the City’s noise ordinance.
17. The existing trail shall be maintained along the south and west sides of Lancaster Lane. If the
applicant needs to remove any segments of the trail to accommodate construction, the applicant
would, in turn, be required to replace/relocate the trail.
18. If an on-site parking shortage is identified by the City, the applicant and the owner of Building 6
(Townplace Suites) shall provide a parking management plan within 30 days for City Council review
and approval.
19. Construction parking for this development shall occur on the site.
20. The applicant shall enter into an assessment agreement with the City, so that if the development
does not maintain the native plantings on the site, the City has the right to maintain them and
assess the cost of such maintenance back to the development.
21. Structures shall comply with the following architectural design standards:
a. All structures shall have high quality finishes and shall be constructed of durable materials. The
major exterior surfaces shall include brick, split-face integral colored decorative block, stucco,
metal panels, stone, or glass.
b. Vertical ribbed panels are not acceptable on the Aloft Hotel building.
c. The tint of window glazing for all buildings shall be complementary.
d. Painted block is prohibited.
e. All building elevations shall receive equal or nearly equal treatment and visual qualities.
f. Building colors shall be harmonious throughout the development.
g. Any parapets visible from the back shall be treated to match the building.
h. Any visible rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened or painted to
match the building. Materials for any screening walls shall be of the same materials as the
primary structure.
i. Buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned walls
unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, offsets, or
other significant visual relief shall be prohibited.
j. Architecture shall be appropriate to the pedestrian scale on office and retail structures.
k. Uniform materials shall be incorporated on all structures. The use of varied textures is
encouraged.
l. Elevations of all sides of a proposed building shall be submitted with the required PUD final plan,
for determination of compliance with the above requirements.
Page 106
22. In conjunction with submission of the first PUD final plan application, that applicant shall submit a
master sign plan for the overall site, in compliance with the following criteria:
a. All signs shall conform to section 21155.05 (Signs - General Regulations and Restrictions) of the
zoning ordinance, except as amended herein.
b. Signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an
integral part of the building’s architecture.
c. The 35-foot high, 125 square foot pylon sign shown on the plans to be located along County
Road 9 shall be eliminated.
d. Five free-standing signs shall be allowed, as follows: 1) two 35-foot high, 150-square foot pylon
signs along Highway 169; 2) two 12-foot high, 100 square foot monument signs along Lancaster
Lane – one near each main driveway entrance to the site; and 3) one 60-square foot monument
sign for the senior housing building.
e. Wall signage shall be allowable, except that no wall signage shall be allowable on Building 7
(senior housing building).
f. Wall signs shall not cover more than eight percent of the wall area.
g. All wall signs shall consist of individual dimensional letters and logos, and shall be architecturally
compatible with the building and other signage in the development.
h. Wall tenant signage shall consist of store/business identification only. Corporate logos,
emblems, and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the
sign band and do not occupy more than fifteen percent of the sign area.
i. Illuminated wall signs shall consist of channel letters with acrylic facing or reverse channel
letters (halo lighted). Externally illuminated wall signs by a separate light source shall be
prohibited.
j. Wall signs shall not extend more than eight inches beyond the face to which the sign is
mounted.
k. Individual letters for wall signs shall not exceed thirty inches in height, except that individual
letters for wall signs on the two hotels shall not exceed fifty-six inches in height. The wall
signage for Building Two (Aloft Hotel) shall not face south or west.
l. Back-lit awnings are prohibited.
m. Inflatable advertising devices and searchlights are prohibited.
n. Temporary signage shall comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
o. Directional signage shall comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
p. Unless otherwise approved, exposed neon tubing for signage or accent purposes is prohibited.
q. Window signs shall not cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of the window area in which
they are located. Window signs shall not use neon paint, tape, chalk, or paper.
r. Signage facing toward, or readily visible from, Lancaster Lane shall not be lighted.
s. The monument signage along Lancaster Lane shall be finished with the same exterior materials
as used on Building 5 (retail/office).
t. Signage shall be shown on all elevations of a proposed building when the required PUD final
plan is submitted, for determination of compliance with the above requirements.
23. In conjunction with submission of the final plat application, the plans must be revised to address
the following engineering-related items:
a. Sheets C6.0-6.5:
1. Pipe material shall conform to Plymouth specifications, which uses PVC depending on depth.
Revise pipe material on plans for public water and sewer.
Page 107
2. Indicate pipe to be removed.
3. Show profile view for all public utilities and clearly label structures.
4. Utility structure schedules and structure builds: See detail ST-6 for approved castings.
Minimum builds shall be 4.0 feet.
5. Show how storm water would be conveyed in parking lots.
6. Clearly indicate public and private utilities on all applicable plan sheets.
7. Show existing and proposed easements on utility plan.
8. Indicate the roadway patch on Lancaster Lane. It shall be 4 inches of asphalt, 8 inches of
class 5 or 7 and 12 inches of select granular, or match existing, whichever is greater. Add
note to sawcut the pavement.
b. Sheet C6.1:
1. Some existing utilities are missing from plan sheet (sanitary sewer from the north). See City
record drawing sheet B-29 as reference for missing pipes on the development plans. The
major impact will be rerouting the 18-inch sanitary sewer from the north. Confirm whether
all utilities are shown properly.
2. Existing storm sewer on bottom right-hand corner of plan sheet: Indicate whether any
water would be directed to this pipe. If water would not be directed to the pipe, remove
pipe up to catch basin. Call out on plan sheet.
c. Sheet C6.5:
1. Existing watermain is PVC. Revise on plans.
2. Provide cross-sections and details for basins and ponds.
3. Provide all applicable City of Plymouth details on plan, including seeding. Details on sheet
7.0 are not Plymouth details, remove any duplicate ones including but not limited to
hydrant assembly, storm sewer, rip rap, pipe bedding, curb and gutter, rock construction
entrance and silt fence, to avoid confusion during construction.
4. Specify where the filtration/bio-filtration/infiltration basins are located on plans. Call out
drain tile as rigid perforated pipe. Add cleanouts for the drain tile and note that the basins
shall drain within 48 hours.
d. Sheet C4.1: Culverts connecting to “wet area” in County right-of-way will need a permit from
DNR.
e. Sheet C4.5: Installation of pond in wetland will require permit approvals from Army Corps of
Engineers, DNR, BWSR and Hennepin County.
f. Maintenance agreements with the City will be required for the water BMPs such as basins,
ponds, wetland walk and porous pavements.
g. See sheets C2.0 to C2.5 for erosion control comments.
1. Add note that back row of double silt fence shall have metal stakes.
2. Do not place bio rolls in City roadway (install at edge of roadway).
3. Remove water and sewer lines from these sheets.
4. Make erosion control items more pronounced on these sheets.
5. Add note to install silt fence around filtration basins once grading is complete.
h. Storm water review will be completed by Bassett Creek Watershed District.
i. Show normal water level (NWL) and high water level (HWL) for ponds and basins. Some sheets
are missing this information.
j. Basin P9: The HWL shall be a minimum of 2 feet below finished floor elevation (FFE) of adjacent
building.
k. The traffic study calls for turn lane extensions on County Road 9. Add to plan.
l. Provide sanitary sewer flows to ensure there is capacity in downstream pipes and lift station.
m. Show existing and proposed easements on utility plan.
Page 108
n. Add wetland restoration to the plan.
o. Avoid planting trees and landscaping within 10 feet of public utilities.
p. Add detail for porous pavement.
q. Add note that there shall be no impacts, blocking or parking in City well house parking lot or City
lift station parking lot.
24. Standard Conditions:
a. No building permits shall be issued until the final plat is recorded with Hennepin County.
b. Any signage shall require a separate sign permit.
c. Compliance with all fire codes, including those for hydrant location and fire lane signage.
d. Compliance with the ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants, post indicator valve, fire
department connections, fire lanes, and fire lane signage.
e. Approved signage is required on abandoned existing water mains under buildings to identify
that the water mains are out of service and inactive.
f. Submit turning radius evaluations for identified fire apparatus on all drive aisles from all
directions. Contact with any objects or extension of apparatus into parking spaces is not
allowed.
g. Height clearance for fire apparatus into and through the parking structure is required.
h. Built-in fire protection of the parking structure may be required.
i. All fire plan review comments and requirements including fire flow calculations shall be
approved by the Fire Inspector prior to any building permit issuance.
j. Removal of all hazardous trees from the property at the owner's expense.
k. Trees planted in the boulevard shall be the responsibility of the abutting landowner.
l. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall enter into a Site Improvement
Performance Agreement and shall provide the required financial guarantees.
m. An 8 ½- x 11-inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the release or
reduction of any site improvement surety.
n. The City will require reproducible prints of sanitary sewer, water service, storm sewer and pond
“As-Builts” for the site prior to the financial guarantee being released.
o. The preliminary plat approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the
property owner or applicant has applied for final plat approval, or unless the applicant, with the
consent of the landowner, has received prior approval from the City to extend the expiration
date for up to one additional year, as regulated under Section 510 of City code.
ADOPTED by the City Council on this 17th day of January, 2017.
Page 109
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota,
certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on
January 17, 2017, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription
thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this _________ day of
__________________________, _____.
__________________________________
City Clerk
Page 110
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE
TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT 4200 LANCASTER LANE,
AND TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Ordinance No. 2017-___ amends Chapter 21 of the Plymouth City Code to rezone land located
at 4200 Lancaster Lane and to establish a planned unit development district.
A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection at the City Clerk’s Office during
regular office hours.
APPROVED for summary publication by the City Council on this 17th day of January, 2017.
Page 111
JOINT
COUNCIL/EDA
MEETING
January 17, 2017
Agenda
Number: 5.02
To: Dave Callister, City Manager
Prepared by: Danette Parr, Economic Development Manager
Item: Agora – Draft Development Agreement
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss the terms of the draft Agora Development Agreement between the City of Plymouth and Rock
Hill Management LLC. No formal action is being requested at this time. Action will be requested as a
part of the January 24, 2017 meeting.
2. BACKGROUND:
Rock Hill Management LLC has submitted an application requesting the establishment of a TIF District
to assist with the redevelopment of the former Four Seasons Mall site. If approved, the approximately
17 acre site will be redeveloped into a mixed use development containing the following components:
• Two hotels totaling 195 rooms and meeting space accommodations
• A 139-unit senior housing facility
• 61,426 square feet of retail space
• 19,860 square feet of administrative office space
• 339 space parking ramp (200 spaces will be utilized for Park and Ride)
The TIF funds being requested for the development would assist with extraordinary costs associated
with site preparation related to demolition, soil conditions, and infrastructure. Stacie Kvilvang, the
city’s financial consultant, will attend the January 17, 2017 joint Council/EDA meeting to provide more
specifics related to the TIF components and to answer questions.
The draft development agreement is attached. The Council will note that certain elements within the
draft document continue to be refined and thus additional details may need to be included where
spaces or references to other documents exist. These details will be solidified by the January 24, 2017
City Council meeting. Staff intends to update the Council/EDA in these areas as a part of the January
17, 2017 meeting. The following is a summary of the terms within the draft document:
Development and Timing of Construction
The developer will begin construction of the retail, office, parking ramp, and hotel structures no later
than June 30, 2017 and have them substantially completed by December 31, 2018. The senior living
project will be constructed by December 31, 2019.
Hotel Projects
The proposed hotels are defined as follows:
Aloft- a select service hotel of not less than 85 or more than 95 units operating as an Aloft hotel
or a select service hotel of similar rating, ranking, or classification.
Page 1
Town Place Suites- an extended stay hotel of not less than 90 or more than 100 units, operating
as a Town Place Suites or extended stay hotel of similar rating, ranking, or classification and
with approximately 8,000 square feet of conference space.
Senior Living Housing
The developer will sell the senior living parcel to Great Lakes Management, Inc. The purchase
agreement will obligate Great Lakes Management, Inc to construct not less than 135 or more than 139
senior housing units by December 31, 2019. In addition to the purchase agreement the developer and
Great Lakes Management, Inc will enter into an agreement that will prohibit Great Lakes Management,
Inc from claiming tax exception on all or any portion of the senior housing on the site.
Parking Ramp
The developer is currently in the process of having plans and specifications created by Walker Parking
Consultants for the proposed 339 stall parking structure. The City will utilize 200 spaces for park and
ride purposes while the developer will use 139 spaces for adjacent uses and have use of the park and
ride spaces when not needed for commuters. Once the plans and specifications are approved by the
city and Met Council, the developer will be responsible for constructing the structure. After the ramp
is fully constructed and shown to be compliant with the approved plans and specifications, the city
anticipates purchasing the ramp from the developer. It’s estimated that the purchase price for the
ramp will be approximately $5,000,000, which will be funded through transit sources and approved by
the city and Met Council.
In addition to the purchase agreement between the city and the developer, the developer will also
enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement and Special Assessment Agreement for no less
than 50 years for the ongoing costs of operations and maintenance of the ramp.
Storm Water Improvements
The developer will be responsible for constructing the storm water infrastructure as detailed in the
approved plans and specifications.
The Bassett Creek Watershed has indicated they are willing to provide the developer up to $830,000 to
support specific storm water treatment improvements. The Watershed has indicated that $630,000
can be used for on-site improvements, while the remaining $200,000 will be utilized specifically for the
wetland restoration project on the adjacent city property.
Tax Increment
If approved, the city will create TIF District 7-9 as a redevelopment district which will have a 26 year
term. The developer will receive a pay-as-you-go note. Three notes are proposed to be generated as a
part of the TIF:
1) Note #1 – Rock Hill Management will receive 70% of the tax increment generated for up to 16.5
years
2) Note #2- Pooled funds to assist with other projects as deemed appropriate by the Council-25%
3) Note #3 – Repayment of Transit funds–5%
The details of the TIF request and its analysis will be discussed further at the January 17, 2017 meeting.
Lookback
The City and the developer have agreed on basic assumptions related to the costs of constructing the
project. At the time construction is complete, if the site improvement costs are less than the agreed on
assumptions, the site improvement costs will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis and the TIF Note
will be reduced to correlate with the reduction.
Page 2
Business Subsidy
If TIF District 7-9 is approved, it would be considered a business subsidy and thus would need to adhere
to the requirements within the Business Subsidy Policy. As required by the policy, if the subsidy is not
for the purpose of job creation, the City must document that the subsidy will deviate from the job
creation purpose. Documenting the deviation is largely administrative in nature, however it does
require a public hearing, which has been noticed to take place at the January 24th Council meeting.
The Planning Commission will review the draft Development Program and TIF Plan at their January 18,
2017 meeting. The City Council is scheduled to hold the 7-9 TIF District and Business Subsidy Policy
public hearings at their January 24, 2017 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
TIF 7-9 Location Map
Draft Development Agreement
Page 3
CO RD
N
O
6
CO RD NO 101CO RD NO 6
CO RD NO 24CO RD NO 101CO RD NO 101CO R
D
4
7
CO RD
N
O
4
7
NORTHWESTBLVD(CORDNO61)XENIUM LA (CO RD NO 61)R O C K F O R D R D (C O R D N O 9 )
CO RD N
O
6 NORTHWESTBLVD(CORDNO61)OLD ROCKFORD RD
BASS LAKE RD (CO RD NO 10)RO CK F OR D RDPEONYLNVICKSBURGLN
VICKSBURGLNFERNBROOKLNZACHARYLNSCHMIDT LAKE RD
S U N S E T T R L
S
T
H
W
Y
5
5
STHWY55
STH
W
Y55INTERSTATE494INTERSTATE494DUNKIRKLNDUNKIRKLNMedinaRd
CARLS O N P K W Y
36TH AVECHESHIREPKWY
City ofMedicineLake
TIF District 7-9
Proposed TIF District 7-9
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Miles
THIS REPRESENTS A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION AND DATA
FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND OTHER SOURCES THAT HAS
NOT BEEN FIELD VERIFIED. INFORMATION SHOULD BE FIELD
VERIFIED AND COMPARED WITH ORINGIAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS.
LEGEND
TIF District 7-9
Development District No. 7
City Boundary
Lakes
Major Roads
Roads
Railroads
City ofPlymouth, Minnesota
Plymouth GIS
Page 4
8099333v5
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
AND
ROCK HILL MANAGEMENT, LLC
This document drafted by: BRIGGS AND MORGAN
Professional Association
2200 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Page 5
8099333v5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................... 3
Section 1.1 Definitions.................................................................................................. 3
ARTICLE II. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ................................................... 6
Section 2.1 Representations and Warranties of the City ............................................... 6
Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties of the Developer ..................................... 6
ARTICLE III. UNDERTAKINGS BY DEVELOPER AND CITY ........................................... 8
Section 3.1 Site Improvements and Legal and Administrative Expenses .................... 8
Section 3.2 Limitations on Undertaking of the City ..................................................... 8
Section 3.3 Reimbursement: Tax Increment Revenue Note ......................................... 8
Section 3.4 Business Subsidies Act .............................................................................. 9
Section 3.5 Execution of Assessment Agreement; Market Value .............................. 10
Section 3.6 Real Property Taxes ................................................................................. 11
Section 3.7 Storm Water Improvements ..................................................................... 11
Section 3.8 Parking Ramp........................................................................................... 12
Section 3.9 Hotel Projects ........................................................................................... 12
Section 3.10 Senior Living Project ............................................................................... 12
Section 3.11 Look Back and Reduction of TIF Assistance .......................................... 12
Section 3.12 Property Sale or Refinance ...................................................................... 13
ARTICLE IV. EVENTS OF DEFAULT .................................................................................. 14
Section 4.1 Events of Default Defined ....................................................................... 14
Section 4.2 Remedies on Default ................................................................................ 14
Section 4.3 No Remedy Exclusive.............................................................................. 15
Section 4.4 No Implied Waiver .................................................................................. 15
Section 4.5 Agreement to Pay Attorney's Fees and Expenses .................................... 15
Section 4.6 Indemnification of City ............................................................................ 15
ARTICLE V. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................... 17
Section 5.1 Restrictions on Use .................................................................................. 17
Section 5.2 Conflicts of Interest.................................................................................. 17
Section 5.3 Titles of Articles and Sections ................................................................. 17
Section 5.4 Notices and Demands .............................................................................. 17
Section 5.5 Counterparts ............................................................................................. 18
Section 5.6 Law Governing ........................................................................................ 18
Section 5.7 Expiration ................................................................................................. 18
Section 5.8 Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration........................................ 18
Section 5.9 Assignability of Agreement and Note...................................................... 18
EXHIBIT A Description of Development Property .................................................................. A-1
EXHIBIT B Form of Tax Increment Note ................................................................................. B-1
EXHIBIT C Projected Site Costs Eligible for Inclusion in TIF Note........................................ C-1
EXHIBIT D Form of Assessment Agreement ........................................................................... D-1
EXHIBIT E Pro Forma ............................................................................................................... E-1
EXHIBIT F Parking Ramp Purchase Agreement ....................................................................... F-1
EXHIBIT G Operating and Maintenance Agreement ............................................................... G-1
Page 6
8099333v5
ii
EXHIBIT H Modified Internal Rate of Return .......................................................................... H-1
Page 7
8099333v5
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 1st day of January, 2017, by and between the City
of Plymouth, Minnesota (the "City"), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Minnesota and Rock Hill Management, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (the "Developer").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.124 through 469.134, the City
has formed Development District No. 7 (the "Development District") and has adopted a
development program therefor (the "Development Program"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 through
469.1794, as amended (hereinafter, the "Tax Increment Act"), the City has created within the
Development District, Tax Increment Financing District No. 7-9 (the "Tax Increment District"),
and has adopted a tax increment financing plan therefor (the "Tax Increment Plan") which
provides for the use of tax increment financing in connection with certain development within
the Development District; and
WHEREAS, the reimbursement by the City for costs of the construction of Site
Improvements incurred by the Developer for a redevelopment project are objectives of the
Development Program and Tax Increment Financing Plan; and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Development Program and
particularly to make the land in the Development District available for development by private
enterprise in conformance with the Development Program, the City has determined to reimburse
the Developer for a portion of the costs of the construction of Site Improvements incurred by the
Developer;
WHEREAS, a major objective of the Development Program and Tax Increment
Financing Plan is to assist redevelopment and prevent the further deterioration of property
located within the Development District; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that the development and construction of the Project, and
fulfillment of this Agreement are vital and are in the best interests of the City, the health, safety,
morals and welfare of residents of the City, and in accordance with the public purpose and
provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which the Project has
been undertaken and is being assisted; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the Business Subsidy Law, Minnesota Statutes, Section
116J.993 through 116J.995, apply to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies that comply
with the Business Subsidy Law, after a public hearing for which notice was published; and
Page 8
8099333v5
2
WHEREAS, the Council has approved this Agreement as a subsidy agreement under the
Business Subsidy Law; and
WHEREAS, creation and retention of jobs is not a goal of this Agreement and the City
will not require setting the wage and job goals for the Project (as defined herein);
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 as follows:
Page 9
8099333v5
3
ARTICLE I.
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.1 Definitions. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the following meanings unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:
Agreement means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified,
amended or supplemented;
Business Day means any day except a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday or a day on
which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close;
Assessment Agreement means the agreement, in substantially the form of the agreement
contained in Exhibit D attached hereto and hereby made a part of this Agreement, among the
Developer, the City and the Assessor for the County, entered into pursuant to Article III of this
Agreement;
Assessor's Minimum Market Value means the agreed minimum market value of the
Development Property and for calculation of real property taxes as determined by the Assessor
for the County pursuant to the Assessment Agreement;
City means the City of Plymouth, Minnesota;
County means Hennepin County, Minnesota;
Developer means Rock Hill Management, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
its successors and assigns;
Development District means the real property described in the Development Program for
Development District No. 7;
Development Program means the development program approved in connection with the
Development District;
Development Property means the real property legally described in Exhibit A attached to
this Agreement;
Event of Default means any of the events described in Section 4.1 hereof;
Hotel Projects means the construction within the TIF District of (i) a select service hotel
of not less than 85 or more than 95 units operating as an Aloft Hotel, or select service hotel of
similar rating, ranking or classification and (ii) an extended stay hotel of not less than 90 or more
than 100 units operating as TownePlace Suites or extended stay hotel of similar rating, ranking
or classification and approximately 8,000 square feet of conference space;
Legal and Administrative Expenses means the fees and expenses incurred by the City in
connection review and analysis of the development proposed under this Agreement with the
Page 10
8099333v5
4
adoption and administration of the Tax Increment Financing Plan and establishment of the Tax
Increment District, the preparation of this Agreement and the issuance of the TIF Note including,
but not limited to, attorney and municipal advisor fees and expenses;
Note Payment Date means August 1, 2019, and each February 1 and August 1 of each
year thereafter to and including February 1, 20____; provided, that if any such Note Payment
Date should not be a Business Day, the Note Payment Date shall be the next succeeding
Business Day;
Parking Ramp means the construction in the TIF District of not less than an
approximately 339 stall 3 story parking ramp, consisting of approximately 139 stalls for public
use and 200 stalls for use by "park and ride" patrons;
Person means any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, joint
stock company, trust, unincorporated organization, or government or any agency or political
subdivision thereof;
Prime Rate means the rate of interest from time to time publicly announced by U.S. Bank
National Association in St. Paul, Minnesota, as its "prime rate" or "reference rate" or any
successor rate, which rate shall change as and when that rate or successor rate changes;
Project means the construction on the Development Property of approximately 61,000
square feet of retail/commercial space and approximately 20,000 square feet of office space;
Senior Living Project means the construction in the TIF District of not less than a 135 or
more than 139 unit senior living facility;
Site Improvements means the site improvements to be undertaken on the Development
Property as identified on Exhibit C attached hereto;
State means the State of Minnesota;
Storm Water Improvements means on-site storm water improvements to be constructed
by the Developer on the Development Property;
Tax Increment Act means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, as
amended;
Tax Increment District means Tax Increment Financing District No. 7-9, located within
the Development District, which was qualified as a redevelopment district under the Tax
Increment Act;
Tax Increment Financing Plan means the tax increment financing plan approved for the
Tax Increment District by the City Council;
Tax Increment Note, TIF Note or Note means the Tax Increment Revenue Note (Rock
Hill Management, LLC Project) to be executed by the City and delivered to the Developer
pursuant to Article III hereof, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B;
Page 11
8099333v5
5
Tax Increments means 70% of the tax increments derived from the Tax Increment
District which have been received and retained by the City in accordance with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177;
Termination Date means the earlier of (i) February 1, 20___, (ii) the date the Tax
Increment Note is paid in full, (iii) the date on which the Tax Increment District expires or is
otherwise terminated, or (iv) the date this Agreement is terminated or rescinded in accordance
with its terms; and
Unavoidable Delays means delays, outside the control of the party claiming its
occurrence, which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, unusually severe or
prolonged bad weather, acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Project, delays in delivery of
materials for the construction of the Project, the soil conditions of the Development Property,
litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action or by
the exercise of reasonable discretion, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or
local governmental unit (other than the City) which directly result in delays.
Page 12
8099333v5
6
ARTICLE II.
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Section 2.1 Representations and Warranties of the City. The City makes the following
representations and warranties:
(1) The City is a municipal corporation and has the power to enter into this
Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(2) The Tax Increment District is a "redevelopment district" within the meaning of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, and was created, adopted and approved in
accordance with the terms of the Tax Increment Act.
(3) The development contemplated by this Agreement is in conformance with the
development objectives set forth in the Development Program.
(4) To finance certain costs within the Tax Increment District, the City proposes,
subject to the further provisions of this Agreement, to apply Tax Increments to reimburse the
Developer for the costs of certain Site Improvements to be constructed in connection with the
Project as further provided in this Agreement.
(5) The City makes no representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, as to
the Development Property or its condition or the soil conditions thereon, or that the Development
Property shall be suitable for the Developer's purposes or needs.
Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties of the Developer. The Developer makes
the following representations and warranties:
(1) The Developer is a Minnesota limited liability company and has power to enter
into this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder and is not in violation of its
operating agreement or member control agreement or the laws of the State.
(2) The Developer shall cause the Project to be constructed in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement, the Development Program, and all local, state and federal laws and
regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, energy conservation, building
code and public health laws and regulations).
(3) The construction of the Project would not be undertaken by the Developer, and in
the opinion of the Developer would not be economically feasible within the reasonably
foreseeable future, without the assistance and benefit to the Developer provided for in this
Agreement.
(4) 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, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of,
the terms, conditions or provision of any contractual restriction, evidence of indebtedness,
Page 13
8099333v5
7
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it
is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(5) The Developer will cooperate with the City with respect to any litigation
commenced with respect to the Project.
(6) The Developer will cooperate with the City in resolution of any traffic, parking,
trash removal or public safety problems which may arise in connection with the construction of
the Project.
(7) The Developer shall commence construction of the Project by June 30, 2017 and
barring Unavoidable Delays, the Project will be substantially completed by December 31, 2018.
(8) The Developer shall commence construction of the Parking Ramp by June 30,
2017 and barring Unavoidable Delays, the Parking Ramp will be substantially completed by
December 31, 2018.
(9) The Developer acknowledges that Tax Increment projections contained in the Tax
Increment Plan are estimates only and the Developer acknowledges that it shall place no reliance
on the amount of projected Tax Increments and the sufficiency of such Tax Increments to
reimburse the Developer for the costs of the Site Improvements as provided in Article III.
Page 14
8099333v5
8
ARTICLE III.
UNDERTAKINGS BY DEVELOPER AND CITY
Section 3.1 Site Improvements and Legal and Administrative Expenses.
(1) The costs of the Site Improvements, the Parking Ramp, and the Project shall be
paid by the Developer. The City shall reimburse the Developer for the lesser of $__________ or
the costs of construction of the Site Improvements actually paid by the Developer (the
"Reimbursement Amount") as further provided in Section 3.3 hereof.
(2) The Developer shall reimburse the City for its actual out of pocket Legal and
Administrative Expenses within 15 days of the request of the City for payment.
Section 3.2 Limitations on Undertaking of the City. Notwithstanding the provisions
of Sections 3.1, the City shall have no obligation to the Developer under this Agreement to
reimburse the Developer for the Reimbursement Amount, if the City, at the time or times such
payment is to be made is entitled under Section 4.2 to exercise any of the remedies set forth
therein as a result of an Event of Default which has not been cured.
Section 3.3 Reimbursement: Tax Increment Revenue Note. The City shall reimburse
the Developer for the costs identified in Section 3.1 for the costs of the construction of the Site
Improvements through the issuance of the City's Tax Increment Revenue Note in substantially
the form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The TIF Note shall be dated, issued and delivered when the Developer shall have
demonstrated in writing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that the construction of the
Hotel Projects and the Project have been completed and that the Developer has incurred and paid
the costs of the Site Improvements and shall have submitted paid invoices for the costs of
construction of the Site Improvements in an amount not less than the Reimbursement Amount.
(2) The unpaid principal amount of the Note shall bear simple, non-compounding
interest from the date that the City has determined the closing statement, purchase agreement and
paid invoices are in compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement, at 4% per
annum. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360 day year consisting of twelve (12) 30-
day months.
(3) The principal amount of the Note and the interest thereon shall be payable solely
from the Tax Increments.
(4) On each Note Payment Date and subject to the provisions of the Note, the City
shall pay, against the principal and interest outstanding on the Note, Tax Increments received by
the City during the preceding 6 months. All such payments shall be applied first to accrued
interest and then to reduce the principal of the Note.
(5) The Note shall be a special and limited obligation of the City and not a general
obligation of the City, and only Tax Increments shall be used to pay the principal and interest on
the Note. If, on any Note Payment Date, the Tax Increments for the payment of the accrued and
Page 15
8099333v5
9
unpaid interest on the Note are insufficient for such purposes, the difference shall be carried
forward, without interest accruing thereon, and shall be paid if and to the extent that on a future
Note Payment Date there are Tax Increments in excess of the amounts needed to pay the accrued
interest then due on the Note.
(6) The City's obligation to make payments on the Note on any Note Payment Date or
any date thereafter shall be conditioned upon the requirement that (A) there shall not at that time
be an Event of Default that has occurred and is continuing under this Agreement and (B) this
Agreement shall not have been rescinded pursuant to Section 4.2(b).
(7) The Note shall be governed by and payable pursuant to the additional terms
thereof, as set forth in Exhibit B and Sections 3.6 and 3.7. In the event of any conflict between
the terms of the Note and the terms of this Section 3.3, the terms of the Note shall govern. The
issuance of the Note pursuant and subject to the terms of this Agreement, and the taking by the
City of such additional actions as bond counsel for the Note may require in connection therewith,
are hereby authorized and approved by the City.
Section 3.4 Business Subsidies Act.
(1) In order to satisfy the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to
116J.995 (the "Business Subsidies Act"), the Developer acknowledges and agrees that the
amount of the "Business Subsidy" granted to the Developer under this Agreement is $_________
which is the reimbursement amount for the installation of the Site Improvements and the Storm
Water Improvements and that the Business Subsidy is needed because the Project is not
sufficiently feasible for the Developer to undertake without the Business Subsidy. The Tax
Increment District is a redevelopment district and the public purpose of the Business Subsidy is
to encourage the demolition of blighted buildings and the construction of
retail/commercial/office facilities in the City.
(2) The creation of jobs has been determined not to be a goal of the City for the
Development Property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 and the
City has held a public hearing and set the wage and job goals at zero.
(3) The Developer agrees to continue operations within the City for at least five (5)
years after the completion of the Project.
(4) There are no other state or local governmental agencies providing financial
assistance for the Project other than the Bassett Creek Watershed and the City.
(5) There is no parent corporation of the Developer.
(6) The Developer certifies that it does not appear on the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development's list of recipients that have failed to meet the terms of
a business subsidy agreement.
(7) The Developer shall provide the City with information about the development of
the Property as requested by the City so that the City can satisfy the reporting requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994, Subd. 8.
Page 16
8099333v5
10
Section 3.5 Execution of Assessment Agreement; Market Value.
(1) Simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, the Developer and the City
shall execute an Assessment Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, specifying the Assessor's Minimum Market Value for the
Development Property and the Project for calculation of real property taxes. Specifically, the
Developer shall agree to a market value for the Development Property and the Project which will
result in a market value as of January 2, 2018 of not less than $12,882,000 until the Termination
Date (such minimum market value at the time applicable is herein referred to as the "Assessor's
Minimum Market Value"). Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of
the Assessor to assign a market value to the property in excess of such Assessor's Minimum
Market Value nor prohibit the Developer from seeking through the exercise of legal or
administrative remedies a reduction in such market value for property tax purposes, provided
however, that the Developer shall not seek a reduction of such market value below the Assessor's
Minimum Market Value in any year so long as the Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect.
The Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect until the Termination Date. The Assessment
Agreement shall be certified by the Assessor for the County as provided in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, upon a finding by the Assessor that the Assessor's Minimum
Market Value represents a reasonable estimate based upon the plans and specifications for the
Project to be constructed on the Development Property and the market value previously assigned
to the Development Property. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8,
the Assessment Agreement shall be filed by the Developer for record in the office of the county
recorder or registrar of titles of Hennepin County, and such filing shall constitute notice to any
subsequent encumbrancer or purchaser of the Development Property (or part thereof), whether
voluntary or involuntary, and such Assessment Agreement shall be binding and enforceable in its
entirety against any such subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer, including the holder of any
mortgage recorded against the Development Property. The Developer shall provide the City
with a recorded copy of the Assessment Agreement.
(2) Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the Developer will not seek a reduction
in the Market Value (as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.02) for the tax collection
years of 2019 through 20__. In the event that the Developer obtains a reduction in Market Value
that results in the City having to make a payment to the County (the "County Payment") for the
tax collection years of 20__ through 20__, the Developer agrees that:
(a) If the TIF Note remains outstanding, the next Tax Increments to be paid to
the Developer shall be reduced by the County Payment, and
(b) If the TIF Note is no longer outstanding, Developer shall pay the amount
of the County Payment to the City within thirty (30) days after written notice from the
City as to the amount of the County Payment.
(3) The Developer shall notify the City of any administrative or judicial review and
shall provide the City a copy of the documentation prepared with respect to any action taken to
reduce the Market Value.
Page 17
8099333v5
11
Section 3.6 Real Property Taxes. Prior to the Termination Date, the Developer shall
pay all real property taxes payable with respect to all and any parts of the Development Property
acquired and owned by it and pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Agreement until the
Developer's obligations have been assumed by any other person pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement or title to the Development Property is vested in another person.
The Developer agrees that prior to the Termination Date:
(1) It will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the applicability of any
tax statute relating to the ad valorem property taxation of real property contained on the
Development Property determined by any tax official to be applicable to the Project or the
Developer or raise the inapplicability of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings with
respect to the Development Property, including delinquent tax proceedings; provided, however,
"tax statute" does not include any local ordinance or resolution levying a tax;
(2) It will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the constitutionality of
any tax statute relating to the taxation of real property contained on the Development Property
determined by any tax official to be applicable to the Project or the Developer or raise the
unconstitutionality of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent
tax proceedings with respect to the Development Property; provided, however, "tax statute" does
not include any local ordinance or resolution levying a tax;
(3) It will not seek any tax deferral or abatement, either presently or prospectively
authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1813, or any other State or federal law, of the
ad valorem property taxation of the Development Property between the date of execution of this
Agreement and the Termination Date.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Section 3.6 shall be interpreted to limit the
Developer's rights under Section 3.5.
Section 3.7 Storm Water Improvements.
(1) The Developer shall construct on the Development Property the Storm Water
Improvements as described in the plans and specifications prepared by the Developer and
approved by the City.
(2) Any modifications of the plans and specifications and change orders shall be
submitted to the City for its approval.
(3) The Bassett Creek Watershed District has awarded a grant of up to $630,000 for
the costs of the Storm Water Improvements on the site and an additional $200,000 for the
wetland restoration to be undertaken by the Developer on adjacent City property.
(4) The Developer shall construct the Storm Water Improvements and the wetland
restoration project and shall comply with the requirements of the grant and shall grant any
easements required by the grant.
Page 18
8099333v5
12
(5) The costs of the Storm Water Improvements funded by the grant shall not be
included in the Site Improvement costs submitted to the City in accordance with Section 3.3 to
be included in the TIF Note.
Section 3.8 Parking Ramp.
(1) The Developer shall submit to the City for approval (i) plans and specifications
for the Parking Ramp prepared by Walker Parking Consultants and (ii) documentation detailing
access points to the Parking Ramp and easements required by the City relating to access points
and as required by the Operating and Maintenance Agreement. The Developer shall construct
the Parking Ramp and provide easements in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications.
(2) The Developer shall comply with all competitive bidding requirements and
payment and performance bond requirements of Minnesota law applicable to the City for the
construction of the Parking Ramp.
(3) Any modifications of the plans and specifications and change orders shall be
submitted to the City for its approval.
(4) In the event that the Parking Ramp is constructed with less than 339 stalls, the
Developer shall provide surface parking for the number of stalls not constructed on the
Development Property in accordance with the parking requirements contained in the PUD for the
Development Property. Park and Ride use shall not be reallocated to any other location on the
site without written consent of the City.
(5) Upon the City's determination that the construction of the Parking Ramp has been
satisfactorily completed in accordance with the plans and specifications, the City shall purchase
the Parking Ramp from the Developer for the purchase amount set forth in the Parking Ramp
Purchase Agreement and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Parking Ramp
Purchase Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit F.
(6) The Developer shall enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement and a
Special Assessment Agreement with the City for a term of 50 years for the operation and
maintenance of the public portion of the ramp, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
Section 3.9 Hotel Projects. The Developer proposes to sell or lease the land within the
TIF District to __________________. The purchases agreements shall obligate the purchasers to
construct the Hotel Projects by December 31, 2018.
Section 3.10 Senior Living Project. The Developer proposes to sell land within the TIF
District to Great Lakes Management, Inc. The purchase agreement shall obligate Great Lakes
Management, Inc. to construct the Senior Living Project by December 31, 2019 and to not seek
tax exemption for all or part of the Senior Living Project.
Section 3.11 Look Back and Reduction of TIF Assistance. The financial assistance to
be provided to the Developer pursuant to this Agreement is based on certain assumptions
regarding the projected costs and expenses associated with constructing the Project (as provided
Page 19
8099333v5
13
in the Pro Forma attached as Exhibit E). The City and Developer agree that those assumptions
will be reviewed at the time of completion of construction of the Project and at the time of any
sale of the Project or Hotel Projects. At the time of completion of construction of the Project, if
the aggregate amount of Site Improvement costs incurred is less than the aggregate amount of
Site Improvement costs projected in Exhibit E, the TIF assistance for Site Improvement costs
will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis in the amount of such deficiency and the principal
amount of the TIF Note will be adjusted accordingly. With regard to costs of the Project,
excluding Site Improvement costs, the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by 50%
of the excess of the aggregate Project Costs projected in Exhibit F over the actual Project Costs
incurred as calculated at the time of completion of construction and based upon actual
documented costs.
Section 3.12 Property Sale or Refinance. If the Developer sells the Project or the Hotel
Projects to an unrelated third party or refinances the Project or Hotel Projects (provided,
however, the placement of permanent debt on the Project and Hotel Projects and the
Development Property will not constitute a refinance giving rise to the review as described in
this Section) during the first 10 years of the term of this Agreement, the Developer agrees to
provide to the City's municipal advisor (the "Consultant") reasonable background documentation
related to Project and Hotel Projects income and expenses for the period from the date of this
Agreement through such sale or refinance date. If the Consultant determines, based on such
review, that the average actual profit realized by the Developer has exceeded an annual 8% cash-
on-cash rate of return during that period of up to 10 years (to be calculated in a manner
comparable to the sample attached as Exhibit I), then 50% of the excess amount of such average
profit over the annual 8% cash-on-cash rate of return will be applied to reduce the amount
payable under the Note and the principal amount of the Note will be reduced accordingly. Such
reduction will be effective upon delivery to Developer of a written notice stating the amount of
such excess profit as determined by the City in accordance with this Section, accompanied by the
Consultant's report.
Page 20
8099333v5
14
ARTICLE IV.
EVENTS OF DEFAULT
Section 4.1 Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of Default"
under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean whenever it is used in this
Agreement any one or more of the following events:
(a) Failure by the Developer to timely pay any ad valorem real property taxes
assessed or other City charges with respect to the Development Property while such
property is owned by Developer.
(b) Failure by the Developer to cause the construction of the Project or the
Parking Ramp to be completed pursuant to the terms, conditions and limitations of this
Agreement.
(c) Failure of the Developer to observe or perform any other covenant,
condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this
Agreement or the Operating and Maintenance Agreement.
(d) The holder of any mortgage on the Development Property or any
improvements thereon, or any portion thereof, commences foreclosure proceedings as a
result of any default under the applicable mortgage documents.
(e) If the Developer shall
(A) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization,
arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief
under the United States Bankruptcy Act of 1978, as amended or under any similar
federal or state law; or
(B) make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors; or
(C) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they
become due; or
(D) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent; or if a petition or answer
proposing the adjudication of the Developer, as a bankrupt or its reorganization
under any present or future federal bankruptcy act or any similar federal or state
law shall be filed in any court and such petition or answer shall not be discharged
or denied within sixty (60) days after the filing thereof; or a receiver, trustee or
liquidator of the Developer, or of the Project, or part thereof, shall be appointed in
any proceeding brought against the Developer, and shall not be discharged within
sixty (60) days after such appointment, or if the Developer, shall consent to or
acquiesce in such appointment.
Section 4.2 Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in
Section 4.1 occurs and is continuing, the City, as specified below, may take any one or more of
Page 21
8099333v5
15
the following actions after the giving of thirty (30) days' written notice to the Developer citing
with specificity the item or items of default and notifying the Developer that it has thirty (30)
days within which to cure said Event of Default. If the Event of Default has not been cured
within said thirty (30) days:
(a) The City may suspend its performance under this Agreement until it
receives assurances from the Developer, deemed adequate by the City, that the Developer
will cure the Event of Default and continue its performance under this Agreement, and no
interest shall accrue on the Note while performance is suspended in accordance with this
Section 4.2.
(b) The City may cancel and rescind the Agreement.
(c) The City may take any action, including legal or administrative action, in
law or equity, which may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and
observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this
Agreement.
Section 4.3 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to
the City 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.
Section 4.4 No Implied Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this
Agreement should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by any other party, such
waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any
other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Section 4.5 Agreement to Pay Attorney's Fees and Expenses. Whenever any Event of
Default occurs and the City shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of
payments due or to become due or for the enforcement or performance or observance of any
obligation or agreement on the part of the Developer herein contained, the Developer agrees that
it shall, on demand therefor, pay to the City the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other
expenses so incurred by the City.
Section 4.6 Indemnification of City.
(1) The Developer releases from and covenants and agrees that the City, its governing
body members, officers, agents, including the independent contractors, consultants and legal
counsel, servants and employees thereof (hereinafter, for purposes of this Section, collectively
the "Indemnified Parties") shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify 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 in the Project, provided that the
foregoing indemnification shall not be effective for any actions of the Indemnified Parties that
are not contemplated by this Agreement.
Page 22
8099333v5
16
(2) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct of
the Indemnified Parties, the Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now
and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit,
action or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly
arising from the actions or inactions of the Developer (or if other persons acting on its behalf or
under its direction or control) under this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or
the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Project; provided, that
this indemnification shall not apply to the warranties made or obligations undertaken by the City
in this Agreement or to any actions undertaken by the City which are not contemplated by this
Agreement.
(3) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City
contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and
obligations of the City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or
employee of the City, as the case may be.
(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City and the Developer agree that paragraphs
(1), (2) and (3) of this Section 4.6 are intended to apply only to the Project and shall not alter or
affect the rights of the City and the Developer under the Parking Ramp Purchase Agreement or
the Operating and Maintenance Agreement.
Page 23
8099333v5
17
ARTICLE V.
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 5.1 Restrictions on Use. The Developer agrees for itself, its successor and
assigns and every successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the
Developer and its successors and assigns shall operate, or cause to be operated, the Project as
retail/commercial/office facilities and shall devote the Development Property to, and in
accordance with, the uses specified in this Agreement.
Section 5.2 Conflicts of Interest. No member of the governing body or other official
of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the
Development Property or the Project, or any contract, agreement or other transaction
contemplated to occur or be undertaken thereunder or with respect thereto, nor shall any such
member of the governing body or other official participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation,
partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested. No member,
official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the City in the event of any default
or breach by the Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.
Section 5.3 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 5.4 Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by any party to any
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 Developer is addressed to or delivered personally to:
Rock Hill Management, LLC
1530 Zarthan Avenue, #309
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Attn: Niral Patel
With a copy to:
Daniel R. Nelson, Attorney
Best & Flanagan LLP
60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(b) in the case of the City is addressed to or delivered personally to the City
at:
Page 24
8099333v5
18
City of Plymouth, Minnesota
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482
Attn: Economic Development Manager
or at such other address with respect to any such party as that party may, from time to
time, designate in writing and forward to the other, as provided in this Section.
Section 5.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 5.6 Law Governing. This Agreement will be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State.
Section 5.7 Expiration. This Agreement shall expire on the Termination Date.
Section 5.8 Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration. Sections 3.5, 4.5 and 4.6
shall survive any rescission, termination or expiration of this Agreement with respect to or
arising out of any event, occurrence or circumstance existing prior to the date thereof.
Section 5.9 Assignability of Agreement and Note. This Agreement may be assigned
only with the consent of the City which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Note
may only be assigned pursuant to the terms of the Note.
Page 25
8099333v5
S-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its
name and on its behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed, and the Developer has caused this
Agreement to be duly executed on its behalf, on or as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
By _______________________________________
Its Mayor
By _______________________________________
Its City Manager
(SEAL)
This is a signature page to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Plymouth
and Rock Hill Management, LLC.
Page 26
8099333v5
S-2
ROCK HILL MANAGEMENT, LLC
By _______________________________________
Niral Patel
Its Manager
This is a signature page to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Plymouth
and Rock Hill Management, LLC.
Page 27
8099333v5
A-1
EXHIBIT A
Description of Development Property
[Insert legal descriptions relating to the Project]
Page 28
8099333v5
B-1
EXHIBIT B
Form of Tax Increment Note
No. R-1 $_________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
(ROCK HILL MANAGEMENT, LLC PROJECT)
The City of Plymouth, Minnesota (the "City"), hereby acknowledges itself to be indebted
and, for value received, hereby promises to pay the amounts hereinafter described (the "Payment
Amounts") to Rock Hill Management, LLC (the "Developer") or its registered assigns (the
"Registered Owner"), but only in the manner, at the times, from the sources of revenue, and to
the extent hereinafter provided.
The principal amount of this Note shall equal from time to time the principal amount
stated above, as reduced to the extent that such principal installments shall have been paid in
whole or in part pursuant to the terms hereof; provided that the sum of the principal amount
listed above shall in no event exceed $_________ as provided in that certain Development
Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2017, as the same may be amended from time to time (the
"Development Agreement"), by and between the City and the Developer and may be reduced as
provided in Sections 3.11 and 3.12. The unpaid principal amount hereof shall bear interest from
the date that the Developer has submitted to the City and the City has determined that the closing
statement, purchase agreement and paid invoices in the amount of the Reimbursement Amount
(as defined in the Development Agreement) are in compliance with the terms of the
Development Agreement at the simple non-compounded rate of four percent (4%) per annum.
Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360 day year consisting of twelve (12) 30-day
months.
The amounts due under this Note shall be payable on August 1, 2019, and on each
February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 20__, or, if the first should not
be a Business Day (as defined in the Development Agreement), the next succeeding Business
Day (the "Payment Dates"). On each Payment Date the City shall pay by check or draft mailed
to the person that was the Registered Owner of this Note at the close of the last business day of
the City preceding such Payment Date an amount equal to the Tax Increments (hereinafter
defined) received by the City during the six month period preceding such Payment Date. All
payments made by the City under this Note shall first be applied to accrued interest and then to
principal.
The Payment Amounts due hereon shall be payable solely from 70% of tax increments
(the "Tax Increments") from the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. 7-9 (the "Tax
Page 29
8099333v5
B-2
Increment District") within its Development District No. 7 which are paid to the City and which
the City is entitled to retain pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174
through 469.1794, as the same may be amended or supplemented from time to time (the "Tax
Increment Act"). This Note shall terminate and be of no further force and effect following the
last Payment Date defined above, on any date upon which the City shall have terminated the
Development Agreement under Section 4.2(b) thereof, the date the Tax Increment District is
terminated, or on the date that all principal and interest payable hereunder shall have been paid in
full, whichever occurs earliest.
The City makes no representation or covenant, express or implied, that the Tax
Increments will be sufficient to pay, in whole or in part, the amounts which are or may become
due and payable hereunder.
The City's payment obligations hereunder shall be further conditioned on the fact that no
Event of Default under the Development Agreement shall have occurred and be continuing at the
time payment is otherwise due hereunder, but such unpaid amounts shall become payable if said
Event of Default shall thereafter have been cured; and, further, if pursuant to the occurrence of
an Event of Default under the Development Agreement the City elects to cancel and rescind the
Development Agreement, the City shall have no further debt or obligation under this Note
whatsoever. Reference is hereby made to all of the provisions of the Development Agreement,
including without limitation Section 3.3 thereof, for a fuller statement of the rights and
obligations of the City to pay the principal of this Note, and said provisions are hereby
incorporated into this Note as though set out in full herein.
This Note is a special, limited revenue obligation and not a general obligation of the City
and is payable by the City only from the sources and subject to the qualifications stated or
referenced herein. This Note is not a general obligation of the City and neither the full faith and
credit nor the taxing powers of the City are pledged to the payment of the principal of this Note
and no property or other asset of the City, save and except the above-referenced Tax Increments,
is or shall be a source of payment of the City's obligations hereunder.
This Note is issued by the City in aid of financing a project pursuant to and in full
conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including the Tax
Increment Act.
This Note may be assigned only with the consent of the City which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. In order to assign the Note, the assignee shall surrender the same to the
City either in exchange for a new fully registered note or for transfer of this Note on the
registration records for the Note maintained by the City. Each permitted assignee shall take this
Note subject to the foregoing conditions and subject to all provisions stated or referenced herein.
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 City outstanding on the date
Page 30
8099333v5
B-3
hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery, does not cause the indebtedness of the
City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation thereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City of Plymouth, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused
this Note to be executed by the manual signatures of its Mayor and City Manager and has caused
this Note to be dated as of __________________.
_________________________________ ___________________________________
City Manager Mayor
Page 31
8099333v5
B-4
CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION
It is hereby certified that the foregoing Note was registered in the name of Rock Hill
Management, LLC, and that, at the request of the Registered Owner of this Note, the
undersigned has this day registered the Note in the name of such Registered Owner, as indicated
in the registration blank below, on the books kept by the undersigned for such purposes.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
REGISTERED OWNER
DATE OF
REGISTRATION
SIGNATURE OF
CITY MANAGER
Rock Hill Management, LLC
1530 Zarthan Avenue, #309
St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ________________ ______________________
Page 32
8099333v5
C-1
EXHIBIT C
Projected Site Costs Eligible for Inclusion in TIF Note
[To be provided by Ehlers]
Page 33
8099333v5
D-1
EXHIBIT D
Form of Assessment Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of this _____ day of __________, 20__, is by and among
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota (the "City") and Rock Hill Management, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company (the "Developer"), and the Hennepin County Assessor (the
"Assessor").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the City and Developer have entered into a
Development Agreement dated as of ______________, 2017 (the "Agreement") regarding
certain real property located in the City (the "Development Property") which property is legally
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
WHEREAS, it is contemplated that pursuant to said Agreement, the Developer will
construct approximately 61,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and approximately 20,000
square feet of office space (the "Project") on the Development Property.
WHEREAS, the City and Developer desire to establish a minimum market value for the
Development Property and the improvements constructed or to be constructed thereon, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8.
WHEREAS, the Developer has acquired the Development Property.
WHEREAS, the City and the Assessor have reviewed plans and specifications for the
Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises,
covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows:
1. As of January 2, 2018 through and thereafter until the Termination Date (as
defined in the Development Agreement) the minimum market value which shall be assessed for
the Project shall be not less than $12,882,000.
2. The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and
effect and this Agreement shall terminate on the Termination Date.
3. This Agreement shall be recorded by the City with the County Recorder of
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Developer shall pay all costs of recording.
4. The Assessor has reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements and
the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be
constructed, and that the "minimum market value" as set forth above is reasonable.
5. Neither the preamble nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, or shall
they be construed as, modifying the terms of the Agreement between the City and the Developer.
Page 34
8099333v5
D-2
6. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors
and assigns of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, the Developer and the Assessor have caused this
Agreement to be executed in their names and on their behalf all as of the date set forth above.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
(SEAL)
By _______________________________________
Its Mayor
By _______________________________________
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________, 20__,
by _______________, the Mayor and ______________, the Manager of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota on behalf of said City.
__________________________________________
Notary Public
This Instrument Drafted By:
Briggs and Morgan, P.A.
2200 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Page 35
8099333v5
D-3
ROCK HILL MANAGEMENT, LLC
By: ______________________________________
Niral Patel, Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________, 20__,
by Niral Patel, the Manager of Rock Hill Management, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, on behalf of said company.
__________________________________________
Notary Public
Signature page for Assessment Agreement by and between the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, Rock Hill Management, LLC, and the Hennepin County Assessor.
Page 36
8099333v5
D-4
CERTIFICATION BY COUNTY ASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed the Assessment Agreement dated as of _________,
2017 between the City of Plymouth, Minnesota and Rock Hill Management, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company; the construction plans for the Project, as defined in the Assessment
Agreement; and the market value currently assigned to land upon which the improvements are to
be constructed and being of the opinion that the minimum market value contained in the
Assessment Agreement appears reasonable, hereby certifies as follows:
The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above
described property, hereby certifies that the market values assigned to such land and
improvements are reasonable.
__________________________________________
County Assessor for Hennepin County
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________, 20__, by
________________, the County Assessor of Hennepin County.
__________________________________________
Notary Public
Page 37
8099333v5
D-5
EXHIBIT A TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Page 38
8099333v5
D-6
CONSENT TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
The ______________________________________, of Great Western Bank (the
"Bank"), does hereby consent to all terms, conditions and provisions of the foregoing
Assessment Agreement and agrees that, in the event it purchases the Development Property at a
foreclosure sale or acquires the Development Property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure or
otherwise in satisfaction of the indebtedness owed by the Developer, it and its respective
successors and assigns, shall be bound by all terms and conditions of the Assessment Agreement,
including but not limited to the provision which requires that the minimum market value of the
Development Property shall be not less than $12,882,000 as of January 2, 2018 and subsequent
assessments through the Termination Date (as defined in the Development Agreement).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have caused this Consent to Assessment Agreement to be
executed in its name and on its behalf as of this ____ day of __________________, 2017.
GREAT WESTERN BANK
By _______________________________________
Its _______________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _______________, 2017,
by ____________________, the _________________ of Great Western Bank, a
__________________, on behalf of the __________________.
__________________________________________
Notary Public
Page 39
8099333v5
E-1
EXHIBIT E
Pro Forma
[to be developed by Ehlers]
Page 40
8099333v5
F-1
EXHIBIT F
Parking Ramp Purchase Agreement
(To be prepared by Best & Flanagan)
Page 41
8099333v5
G-1
EXHIBIT G
Operating and Maintenance Agreement
(To be provided by the City of Plymouth)
Page 42
8099333v5
H-1
EXHIBIT H
Modified Internal Rate of Return
[To be provided by Ehlers]
Page 43