Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
9.a. Request by KJ Walk Inc.
ROSEMOUN1" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting Date: November 20, 2012 I AGENDA ITEM: Case 12-20-PP, 12-21-PUD, 12-22-FP, 12- i 29-CUP, and 12-30-PUD Request by KJ Walk Inc. for a Eight (8) Lot Preliminary Plat; a Two (2) Lot Final Plat; Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan AGENDA SECTION: with Rezoning to C-4 PUD Zoning West of New Business Business Parkway and C-3PUD Zoning East of Business Parkway; a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a gas station; and a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan for a Country Inn & Suites. PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Resolutions, Ordinance, Planned Unit APPROVED BY: Development Agreements, Location Map; Preliminary Plat; Final Plat; Preliminary Grading & Site Utilities Plan; SuperAmerica Color Rendering; Preliminary Gas Station Site Plan; SuperAmerica Elevations; SuperAmerica Floor Plan; Gas Station Landscape Plan; Country Inn & Suites Color Rendering; Hotel Landscape Plan; Hotel Photometric Plan; Joint Tenant Sign Elevations; Excerpt from the September 25 Planning Commission Minutes; Excerpt from the Draft October 23 Planning Commission Minutes; E-mail from David Harchanko regarding Country Inn & Suites Elevation Changes; Rosewood Commercial/TCF Property Traffic Study. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Final Plat for Rosewood Commercial. Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commercial. Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning to C-3 PUD and C-4 PUD for Rosewood Commercial. Motion to adopt an Ordinance B-225, an Ordinance amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance for Rosewood Commercial to Rezone the property from R-1: Low Density Residential and C-4: General Commercial to C-3 PUD: Highway Commercial Planned Unit Development and C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development. Motion to approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan agreement for Rosewood Commercial and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Agreement. Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Conditional Use Permit for a Non-service Station Retail Facility with Gas Pumps for KJ Walk, Inc. Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Site and Building Plan for a Country Inn & Suites Hotel. Motion to approve the Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan agreement for Country Inn & Suites and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Agreement. SUMMARY KJ Walk, Inc. has submitted an application for an eight (8) lot commercial subdivision that will provide a site for a new hotel and gas station with car wash, along with six (6) additional commercial lots. The plans indicate that there will be a private road west of Business Parkway and a public road east of Business Parkway. The public road will ultimately be extended to Biscayne Avenue and serve as an access for development in this project and for the adjoining property. The adjacent lot, currently owned by TCF Bank,is not part of this application, but the City is working with TCF and Mr. Israelson to see if the frontage road can be constructed in the near future to spur economic development. The applicant has also submitted information for site plan and conditional use permit approvals for a gas station with canopy and drive-thru car wash;and for a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan approval for a three story hotel. The gas station will be located on Lot 1,Block 2, located east of Business Parkway and fronting onto County Road 42. The plans include five (5) pumping islands that can accommodate four (4) vehicles each. The 3,200 square foot building is located on the north side of the site,in-between the canopy and the public road, and single family residences beyond. The drive-thru car wash is located on the north of the building,with stacking on the north and east side of the building.The proposed gas station (non service station having gas pumps) and car wash use prompts the need to rezone the property to a C-3 Highway Service Commercial. Because the entire commercial area will be a PUD, the eastern side would be C-3 PUD and staff is looking at C-4 (General Commercial District) PUD in the west. The hotel is proposed to be located on Lot 6,Block 1, on the far west side of the site. The hotel would be a Country Inn&Suites franchise with a three story design and approximately 70 rooms and a swimming pool. Since the Planning Commission review, staff has commissioned a traffic study to review potential impacts associated with retail development on the project site and adjoining TCF property. A traffic study was not initially requested since much of the commercially designated land is not currently proposed for development. The only two known entities are a gas station and hotel. However, to 2 facilitate traffic analysis, staff projected additional commercial uses on the remaining land to get a clearer picture of potential traffic generation, and the potential impacts of commercial development on adjoining public streets. The traffic analysis models the traffic flow both with and without the extension of 149th Street. The study finds all the street intersections will operate an acceptable level of service (LOS) with the gas station and hotel development and without a signal at Biscayne Avenue and County Road 42. The one exception is that the left out of Business Parkway unto eastbound County Road 42 will operate during the peak PM travel time, at a LOS F. However, the current situation,without any commercial development,has the left turn operating at a LOS C.The traffic study also shows that street intersections with a signal at Biscayne Avenue and County Road 42 will be able to handle the ultimate commercial development for both the Rosewood Commercial and TCF bank properties. A more complete discussion of the traffic study is located later in the Executive Summary and the full traffic study is attached. Based on the results of the traffic study, staff believes the concept of commercial along the County Road 42 strip is a reasonable use of the property. Further, the traffic study supports that the current road configuration, even without 149th Street,is reasonable and can address the traffic generation of the proposed hotel and gas station. Future improvements would be needed as future commercial development occurs. Consistent with the Planning Commissioner recommendation, staff recommends approval of the final plat,preliminary plat,rezoning to C-4 PUD and the PUD for the hotel use. Staff also continues to recommend approval of the C-3 PUD zoning and CUP for the gas station which is not consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. October 23 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission continued the public hearing at their October 23 meeting. Four residents from Rosewood Estates and one resident near the SuperAmerica on 145th Street spoke concerning the proposal. Rosewood estates residents expressed concerns regarding the traffic, the height of the berm north of the gas station,and the noise from the railroad tracks. The resident near the 145`h Street SuperAmerica stated that the car wash is noisy. The concerns discussed by the Planning Commissioner were the same subjects as the residents. Truman Howell, the architect for the hotel, stated that noise from the railroad tracks was considered during the site selection. Luke Israelson stated that the land is guided for commercial and that the gas station will not generate traffic unlike other commercial uses. Chair Powell stated that he would be voting against the motions because there is no traffic study to support the approval of the gas station and the hotel. Staff asked Chair Powell if there was a condition that could be added to address his concern, such as that largest commercial would be prohibited from developing without the extension of 149th Street. Chair Powell stated that no additional condition would change his vote against the proposal. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the final plat with a five to one vote. The Planning Commission's first vote on the preliminary plat was a tie three to three vote. To address the tie vote, the Planning Commission revisited the preliminary plat recommendation and added a condition that Lot 7,Block 1 could not be developed without the extension of 149th street and the truncation of Business Parkway. With this additional condition, the preliminary plat and final plat both received recommendations of approval with five to one votes. 3 Planning Commission Miller revised the staff recommendation on the PUD and rezoning to remove the C-3 zoning. The first vote for a recommendation of only C-4 zoning failed on a three to three vote. Commissioner Demuth asked if the applicant would be able to request the C-3 rezoning from the City Council if the Planning Commission recommended against. Staff confirmed that that City Council still has the opportunity to approve the C-3 zoning request. On the second vote, a recommendation of only C-4 zoning passed with a four to two vote. Following the rezoning vote,Planning Commissioner Miller recommended denial of the CUP for the gas station because it was inconsistent with the recommended C-4 zoning. That recommendation passed unanimously. The PUD approval for the hotel received a recommendation of approval with a five to one vote. September 25 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their September 25 meeting. One resident spoke during the hearing questioning the height of the screening trees that will be planted and the screening for the canopy lights. Senior Planner Zweber stated that the Code requires conifer trees to be six (6) feet tall when installed and the canopy lights will be completely recessed LED lights. The Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to the October 23 meeting. Commissioner Husian questioned if vapors from the gas station were considered during the decision to locate the gas station, south of existing residences. Mr. Israelson did not know if SuperAmerica considered that issue during the design. Commissioner Husian has since provided articles to staff regarding gasoline vapor. Staff has prepared some comments regarding this issue later in this Executive Summary. Commissioner Miller expressed concerns that the traffic from the gas station will exceed the local roads,including 149th Street and Business Parkway. Commissioner Miller requested additional analysis of the traffic for the October 23 meeting. Preliminary Plat The site is 26.581 acres and is being platted into eight (8) lots and dedicates a portion of 149th Street right of way. There will be seven (7) lots west of Business Parkway, six (6) of which will gain access directly from the private drive. Lot 1, Block 1 will need an access easement across Lot 2,Block 1 to provide access to the private drive. There is no access allowed from County Road 42 or from the west due to the rail line. Lots range in size from 0.941 acres to 14.9 acres. The largest, lot 7 is anticipated for more of a big box user which is not identified at this time. Dakota County has required the dedication of an additional 25' of right of way along County Road 42. East of Business Parkway, there is one developable lot (Lot 1,Block 2), 60 foot wide right-of-way for 149th Street West, and an eighteen (18)wide outlot between 149th Street and the residents to the north. The outlot will contain a three foot high berm and a row of evergreen trees to screen the residents. Lot 1,Block 2 is proposed for a gas station,possibly a SuperAmerica. The Planning Commission added a condition that Lot 7, Block 1 cannot be developed without the extension of 149th Street to Biscayne Avenue and Business Parkway is truncated from the Rosewood Estates residential subdivision. Staff has removed that condition from the resolution recommended to the City Council. Staff has done this for two reasons. First, the City Council is considering assisting in the extension of 149`h Street. Second, staff is uncomfortable committing to truncating Business Parkway without understanding the development proposed on Lot 7, Block 1 and a desire 4 to conduct a neighborhood meeting inviting all the residents of Rosewood Estates. Staff would desire to make sure that the majority of the neighbors would desire the disconnection of Business Parkway. Access The primary access to the development is from Business Parkway. At this time there is a full access at the intersection with County Road 42. Under the approved County Road 42 Corridor Study, at some point the access will be modified to a 3/4 access. That means that cars from the east and west can turn in, and cars can turn right but there will be no left out from Business Parkway. Staff has been informed that the intersection modifications would occur when there was too much traffic at the intersection, therefore prompting safety concerns, or when a signal light is installed at Biscayne Avenue. The idea is that people wanting to exit the commercial area to the east (left turn) would use a newly constructed frontage road,labeled 149th Street on the plat. The first segment of the road could be constructed with this project. Staff has begun conversations with TCF Bank, the owner of the adjacent property, to explore if there are ways to construct 149`h Street to Biscayne Avenue before the development of the TCF property occurs. At present the City Council has authorized adding 149th Street to the MSA map which would open up funding opportunities. Staff has also discussed dedication of a right of way necessary for road construction by each of the affected property owners in recognition of road construction through the MSA process. While ultimately staff believes the entire commercial project must be served by 149`h Street to be viable and not adversely affect the residential neighborhood to the north, staff does not believe its construction is imperative to the commercial projects currently before the Council. Access to the individual platted lots will be through a combination of public or private access, depending upon lot location. Parcels in the west will use a private drive system, owned and maintained by the individual property owners. Engineering staff will review the road alignment and design to ensure it is acceptable and would accommodate the amount of commercial traffic anticipated by the overall project. The City does not have specific construction standards for private drives. In the east, the road will be public and designed by the City. It is anticipated that at the intersection with Business Parkway the road will have three lanes, one-in, and two-out; one being a left turn lane and the other for right or through movements. The road design will be of a commercial standard in recognition of the designated land use for the adjoining southern properties. Full access to the gas station will be from the public road (149th Street) to the north but also through a free right ingress access from Business Parkway. The current ingress access from Business Parkway may allow left turns in. Staff has prepared a condition that the north curb cut must extend beyond the median to ensure that the existing median on Business Parkway would prevent any left turn into the gas station. 149`h Street will have turn lanes 300 feet long that will result in stacking and limitation on free turning movements and therefore there is a single access onto 149th Street located as far from the intersection as possible on the west side of the property. Rosewood Commercial/TCF Property Traffic Study WSB performed a traffic study for the roadway affected by the proposed Rosewood Commercial development. The traffic study has three development scenarios; first, the development of the gas station and hotel in 2013 without an extension of 149`h Street to Biscayne Avenue; second, the development of the gas station and hotel in 2013 with an extension of 149`h Street to Biscayne 5 Avenue but without a signal at Biscayne Avenue and County Road 42; and third, the entire development of the Rosewood Commercial and the TCF property in 2030 with extension of 149th Street and a signal at Biscayne Avenue and County Road 42. The 2013 scenario without the extension of 149th Street shows that the two intersections of Business Parkway (at 149th Street and County Road 42) operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) considering traffic from the gas station and hotel. The intersections are ranked from A to F,with A, B, C, and D intersections passing and E and F intersections failing. Both the intersections along Business Parkway have a grade of A. Looking at the southbound left turning movement at the intersection of Business Parkway and County Road 42, a PM peak hour car will have a 41 second wait which operates at a LOS F. It should be recognized that this is a relatively small amount of vehicle trips and would be considered a temporary issue, until such time as 149th Street is constructed through to Biscayne. The maximum length of cars queuing in the left turn lane would be 114 feet,well short of the 300 feet total turn lane length. The 2013 scenario with the extension of 149`h Street shows that all the intersections operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) considering traffic from the gas station and hotel. The worst intersection in the 2013 analysis is the Biscayne Avenue and County Road 42 intersection with a grade of C. The C grade is based mostly due to the southbound Biscayne Avenue traffic delay to enter onto County Road 42. All other intersections have a grade of A. The 2030 scenario assumes a signal at Biscayne Avenue and County Road 42 and the total development of 190,000 square feet of retail and restaurant, a gas station, a hotel, and an apartment. The traffic study shows all intersections handling the traffic from the development. Biscayne Avenue and County Road 42 intersection would have a grade of C and the Business Parkway and County Road 42 intersection would have a grade of B. In both cases, the lower grade is a result of the delay of traffic from Biscayne Avenue and Business Parkway onto County Road 42. Sidewalks There are sidewalks existing on both sides of Business Parkway. The preliminary plat shows sidewalks on the south side of 149`h Street, on the south side of the private drive across Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Block 1, then crossing to the north side of the private drive to the edge of Lot 6 that would contain the hotel. The site plans for the hotel and the gas station both show sidewalks in front of their businesses,but neither contains sidewalk connections from the business to the sidewalks along the roads. Staff has prepared a condition for the gas station conditional use permit (CUP) to require a sidewalk connection form the south business entrance to the sidewalk on the east side of Business Parkway. Staff has also prepared a condition for the hotel planned unit development (PUD) to require a sidewalk connection from the hotel main entrance to the sidewalk at the private drive cul- de-sac bulb. Final Plat The proposed final plat includes two (2) lots, three (3) outlots and the right-of-way for 149th Street and County Road 42. Lot 1, Block 1 is configured for the hotel and Lot 1,Block 2 is configured for the gas station with car wash. Staff finds that the final plat is consistent with preliminary plat. The developable area of the plat (Lot 1,Block 1;Lot 1, Block 2,and the right-of-way for 149th Street) is 4.529 acres. The developers will need to pay for park dedication and trunk utility charges based on 4.529 acres. The outlots will pay for their development charges upon a final plat that creates additional developable lots. 6 Joint Signage As a part of the PUD approval, KJ Walk requests a deviation from the sign standards to construct a 22 foot 6 inch tall joint tenant sign in the southwest corner Lot 5, Block 1. The City Code limits signs to twenty feet in height,but the City has granted PUD deviations for joint signage in the recent past including Celtic Crossing and Rosemount Commons. The sign would accommodate seven signs, one for each commercial lot located west of Business Parkway. The sign located on the west side of the development would give the eastbound driver the most notification allowing the driver time to move to the left turn lane on Business Parkway. Staff would expect that having a larger joint use sign would reduce the amount of individual signs for each of the businesses. The sign is proposed of a stone base and parallel vertical columns with a standing seem metal hip and gable roof. The sign panel would have two larger sign panels on the top and five smaller sign panels below. The top most sign panel is expected to be saved for the anchor tenant of Lot7,Block 1, and County Inn& Suites is claiming the second panel. The bottom five panels would be reserved for Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. Staff is supportive of the design and height of the joint tenant sign, but staff is recommending the PUD requirement to be slightly taller than requested in case Lot 7, Block 1 has more than one tenant. Staff has prepared a recommendation that the sign be allowed to be up to twenty five (25) feet in height with up to eight (8) tenant signs. Dakota County Plat Commission/County Road 42 The Dakota County Plat Commission has required an additional 25 feet of right-of-way along County Road 42. The 2030 Dakota County Transportation Plan depicts County Road 42 expanding to a six lane road from Biscayne Avenue to the west. A six lane County Road requires 200 feet of right-of-way, 100 feet on each side of the road. There is currently 75 feet of right-of-way on the north side of County Road 42 requiring the additional 25 feet of right-of-way dedication. The current intersection of Business Parkway is a full intersection, the long term County Road 42 plans describes the intersection as a 3/4 intersection. A 3/4 quarter intersection allows right and left turn onto Business Parkway,but only a right out onto County Road 42. The intersection of Claret Avenue and County Road 42 by the Cub Foods is an example of a 3/4 intersection. The Plat Commission stated that the 3/4 intersection may be required if safety concerns arise at the intersection or when 149`h Street is extended to Biscayne Avenue. In preparation of the 3/4 intersection, the City has begun conversation with the property owner to the east, TCF Bank, to determine if it there is way to construction 149th street to Biscayne before their property develops. The City Council will discuss the 149th Street extension at their November work session. GAS STATION WITH CAR WASH The gas station is proposed to be a brick building with a shingled hip roof. Window and glass doors will face south towards County Road 42, a garbage enclosure is located on the west side of the building, and a car wash is attached to the north side of the building. The garbage enclosure is brick on the north and west sides and a composite wood door on the south side. The car wash is brick with three windows facing north and garage doors facing east and west. The canopy has brick columns and a color band around the canopy. The lights proposed are LED lights fully recessed into the canopy and therefore the fixtures will not be visible from the neighboring properties. The canopy is proposed to be 20 feet 6 inches tall,2 feet 6 inches in excess of the Code maximum of 18 feet. Staff recommends that the canopy be lowered to 18 feet in height. 7 A landscaping plan has been proposed for all four sides of the site and an additional twenty four (24) Black Hills spruce trees along the berm in the outlot north of 149th Street. The plan includes 57 trees and 156 scrubs. This landscape plan is compliant with the City Code. SuperAmerica has proposed four signs on the building and four signs on the canopy. The building has a "car wash" sign on the west side of building, a"SuperAmerica" sign of the east side of the sign, an illuminated"SuperAmerica" sign banner over the doors and windows on the south side of building, and a roughly 5 foot by 10 foot manual reader board sign located east of the entrance to state what sales they are having. The canopy has a 3 foot by 3 foot logo sign on the north and south side of the canopy and a"SuperAmerica" sign on the east and west sides of the canopy. Staff is supportive of the signs that are proposed. SuperAmerica has not submitted a pylon sign,but staff has discussed with them the sign standards. The photometric plan will need be revised to address the revised site plan and lot combination. Lighting levels cannot exceed 0.5 lumens on the north property line and 1.0 lumen on the east, south, and west property lines. Commissioner Husain's Gasoline Vapor Comments Commissioner Husian expressed concern with a gas station producing gasoline vapor too close to existing residents. Commissioner Husian provided staff a Discovery Magazine article that stated that a Spanish university conducted a study that observed gasoline vapors as far as 100 meters (328 feet) from a gasoline pump. The study recommended that gasoline pumps are placed at least 50 meters (164 feet) from residences and 100 meters from high risk uses, such as schools and hospitals. The proposed gasoline pumps are located about 220 feet from the north gas station property line, about 290 feet from the nearest property line, and about 320 feet from the rear setback line of those residential lots. These measurements are in excess of the 164 feet recommended setback from the Spanish study. HOTEL County Inn& Suites submitted a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Site and Building Plan application for the development of Lot 6,Block 1. Staff understands that the location of a hotel on a lot that is not adjacent to County Road 42 is suitable. A three story hotel design on Lot 6,Block 1 will be visible from County Road 42 if a one story commercial use is constructed on Lot 5,Block 1. The PUD request is for flexibility in two C-4 zoning requirements: building height and building materials. The maximum building height for the C-4 district is 35 feet. This building height is suitable for the majority of commercial uses from most single story retail uses to a three story, flat roofed office building. The proposed hotel has a twelve (12) foot tall first floor, a ten (10) foot tall second floor, and an eight (8) foot tall third floor,resulting in a total of thirty (30) feet before the roof. The first and second stories are taller than the third floor due to the uses located on the first floor. The hotel lobby and particularly the pool require ceiling heights that exceed a typical seven (7) plus foot ceiling height required for hotel rooms. For this reason, staff is supportive of a deviation for the C-4 principal building height up to 45 feet. The original hotel submittal showed the future fourth generation design. This is a much more modern design than the typical Country Inn & Suite design that has a pitched roof with a significant brick or stone exterior. The fourth generation design is dominated by a flat roof and a slate and grey appearance. The exterior building materials were only eleven percent (11%) stone,with the majority of the exterior material being fiber cement siding. Staff discussed with the applicant that this design was significantly different than the City Code requirement, listed as follows: 8 11-4-14 G. 3. Permitted Materials: The exterior wall surfaces of all buildings shall be constructed of at least fifty percent(50%) brick or natural stone. The remaining fifty percent(50%)of the wall surface may be specialty integral colored concrete block (including textured, burnished, and rock faced block), tile (masonry, stone or clay), architectural textured concrete panels cast in place, or better. EIFS or masonry stucco may be used for the sign band areas and/or architectural accents totaling no more than ten percent(10%) of the nonglass, brick or stone portion of the building. Unadorned concrete is prohibited. Staff believes that a three story hotel has a significant different exterior design than a traditional single story retail use in the C-4 district and therefore staff can support some deviation from a 90% masonry building. The fourth generation design's 11% stone design is too far from the Code standard. When discussing the options of changes to the fourth generation design to add more brick or stone, the developer has offered to revert back to the third generation design that includes a pitched roof and earth tones. The developer stated that the third generation design is easier to include more brick and stone and staff believes that this design has more residential style elements and would transition better between the Downtown and the neighboring residential neighborhood. Attached is a color rendering of the third generation design. The building elevations describe the layout of the 70 room hotel design with a elevation predominately of EIFS and stone and a pitch standing seam metal roof. Staff does not expect that the third generation design will meet the 90% masonry standard, but will be better than the original 11% stone design. Staff has proposed a PUD condition that the non-glass exterior materials be at least 25%brick and stone and that the remaining materials can be EIFS, fiber cement siding, or packaged thermal air conditioning (PTAC) grills. The resolution of approval allows staff to administratively approve the final building elevations in compliance with the City Code and the PUD standards for the exterior materials and height. The landscaping and photometric plans meet or exceed the Code requirements. The site plan includes the ability to expand the hotel to the west in the future if the hotel market could support the addition. Staff has prepared conditions that the storm water design be modified to send the storm water to the pond located on Lot 7,Block 1 to the north and to provide an easement to the storm water pond maintenance bench located in the northwest corner of the lot. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Ultimately, staff's assumes that 149`h Street from Business Parkway to Biscayne Avenue through the adjacent TCF bank owned property will be constructed. There will be continued discussions to construct 149th Street sooner rather than later in the commercial development process. However, staff believes the current road system can accommodate the commercial development currently before the Council. Staff has recommended approval of: • Approval of the Final Plat; • Approval of the Preliminary Plat; • Approval of the PUD Master Development Plan with Rezoning to C-4 PUD west of Business Parkway and C-3 PUD east of Business Parkway; • Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a gas station;and • Approval of the PUD Final Site and Building Plan for a Country Inn and Suites hotel. 9 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR ROSEWOOD COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Final Plat approval from KJ Walk, Inc. concerning property legally described as: Outlots D, E, and F, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on September 11, September 25,and October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Final Plat for Rosewood Commercial; and WHEREAS, on November 20,2012, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Final Plat for Rosewood Commercial, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Conditions of the Rosewood Commercial Preliminary Plat. 2. Payment of park dedication, GIS and trunk utility charges shall be based upon 4.529 acres. 3. The drainage and utility easement over the storm water pipe shall be expanded to thirty five (35) feet in width. 4. The final plan for the trunk storm sewer system will be designed by the City Engineer. 5. The intersection of the private drive and Business Parkway will need to include the private drive lanes matching the alignment of the through travel lanes of 149`h Street. ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2012,by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ROSEWOOD COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Preliminary Plat approval from KJ Walk, Inc. concerning property legally described as: Outlots D, E, and F, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on September 11, September 25, and October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commercial;and WHEREAS, on October 23,2012, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commercial; and WHEREAS, on November 20,2012, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commercial, subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate an additional 25 feet of Right-of-Way for County Road 42 per the Dakota County Plat Commission recommendation. 2. Provide and record an access easement across Lot 2, Block 1 from the private drive west of Business Parkway to Lot 1,Block 1. ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2012,by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste,Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING TO C-3 PUD AND C-4 PUD FOR ROSEWOOD COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from KJ Walk,Inc. requesting a planned unit development (PUD) master development plan with rezoning concerning property legally described as: Outlots D, E, and F, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County,Minnesota. WHEREAS, on September 11, September 25, and October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the requested application; and WHEREAS, on October 23,2012, the Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning Rosewood Commercial to C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development;and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission did not recommended approval of rezoning Lot 1,Block 2 to C-3 PUD: Highway Commercial Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan of Rosewood Commercial; the Rezoning West of Business Parkway from R-1: Low Density Residential and C-4: General Commercial to C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development; and Rezoning East of Business Parkway from R-1: Low Density Residential to C-3 PUD: Highway Commercial Planned Unit Development, subject to: 1. A deviation from City Code Section 11-8-6 C. 2. b. to allow a joint tenant monument sign up to twenty five (25) feet tall and displaying up to eight (8) separate businesses. ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2012,by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA M RESOLUTION 2012 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING TO C-4 PUD FOR ROSEWOOD COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from KJ Walk, Inc. requesting a planned unit development (PUD) master development plan with rezoning concerning property legally described as: Outlots D, E, and F,Rosewood Estates,Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on September 11, September 25, and October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the requested application;and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning Rosewood Commercial to C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development;and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission did not recommended approval of rezoning Lot 1,Block 2 to C-3 PUD: Highway Commercial Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, on November 20,2012, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan of Rosewood Commercial with Rezoning from R-1: Low Density Residential and C-4: General Commercial to C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development, subject to: 1. A deviation from City Code Section 11-8-6 C. 2. b. to allow a joint tenant monument sign up to twenty five (25) feet tall and displaying up to eight (8) separate businesses. ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2012,by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A NON-SERVICE STATION RETAIL FACILITY WITH GASOLINE PUMPS FOR KJ WALK, INC. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from KJ Walk, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a non-service station retail facility with gasoline pumps (a gas station with convenience store and car wash) concerning property legally described as: Lot 1,Block 2,Rosewood Commercial, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on September 11, September 25,and October 23,2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed and conducted a public hearing for the conditional use permit application for the gas station; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council deny the conditional use permit application for the gas station because the property is not zoned C- 3: Highway Commercial;and WHEREAS, on November 20,2012, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations for the rezoning and the conditional use permit;and WHEREAS, on November 20,2012, the City Council of the City of Rosemount approved the rezoning of Lot 1,Block 2, Rosewood Commercial to C-3 PUD: Highway Commercial Planned Unit Development;and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the conditional use permit for the non-service station retail facility with gasoline pumps, subject to the following conditions: 1. The north curb cut for the right-in ingress from Business Parkway shall not extend beyond the median curb. Final design of the right-in ingress must be approved by the City Engineer. 2. A sidewalk shall be installed from the south entrance from the gas station to the sidewalk on the east side of Business Parkway. 3. The canopy over the gasoline pumps shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. 4. A photometric plan must be provided that shows that the light does not exceed 0.5 lumens on the north property line and 1.0 lumen on the east, south, and west property lines. 5. A three to one (3:1) slope berm shall be installed within Outlot A and planted with conifer trees spaced every fifteen (15) feet. 6. A landscaping security of$14,110 (57 trees times $225 per tree times 110%) shall be provided until all the vegetation is installed a one year warranty period has expired. RESOLUTION 2012- . ADOPTED this 20th da y of November,v be , 2012 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste,Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL SE PERMIT U C P (CUP) ) FOR A NON-SERVICE STATION RETAIL FACILITY WITH GASOLINE PUMPS FOR KJ WALK, INC. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from KJ Walk, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a non-service station retail facility with gasoline pumps (a gas station with convenience store and car wash) concerning property legally described as: Lot 1,Block 2, Rosewood Commercial,Dakota County,Minnesota. WHEREAS, on September 11, September 25, and October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed and conducted a public hearing for the conditional use permit application for the gas station; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council deny the conditional use permit application for the gas station because the property is not zoned C- 3: Highway Commercial;and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations for the rezoning and the conditional use permit; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby deny the conditional use permit for the non-service station retail facility with gasoline pumps because the C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development zoning district does not permit non-service station retail facility with gasoline pumps. ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2012 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste,Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2012 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR A COUNTRY INN & SUITES HOTEL WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from KJ Walk, Inc. requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Site and Building Plan concerning property legally described as: Lot 1,Block 1,Rosewood Commercial,Dakota County,Minnesota. WHEREAS, on October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the requested application;and WHEREAS, on October 23,2012, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested applications, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on November 20,2012, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Site and Building Plan for a Country Inn & Suites Hotel, subject to: 1. A sidewalk shall be installed from the south entrance from the hotel to the sidewalk at the cul-de-sac of the private drive. 2. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-14 G. 3. to require 25%brick or stone of all non-glass exterior materials. The brick and stone should be focused on the architectural significant features such as the entry feature and the room columns. The remaining building material can be EIFS, cement fiber siding or PTAC grills. 3. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-14 F. 10. to allow the maximum principal building height up to be forty five (45) feet. 4. Staff shall administratively approve the final elevations of the hotel in conformance with the City Code and the PUD exterior material and height standards. 5. Stormwater for the site shall be directed to the pond to the north on Lot 7,Block 1. 6. An access easement to the maintenance bench of the pond to the north shall be provided to the City for recording. 7. A landscaping security of$6,680 (27 trees times $225 per tree times 110%) shall be provided until all the vegetation is installed a one year warranty period has expired. ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2012,by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- 225 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Rosewood Commercial to C-4 PUD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance,"is hereby amended to rezone the following property from R-1: Low Density Residential and C-4: General Commercial to C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development: Outlot D, Outlot E, and Outlot F;Rosewood Estates,Dakota County Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled"Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning,but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 20th day of November, 2012. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- 225 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Rosewood Commercial THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance,"is hereby amended to rezone the following property from R-1: Low Density Residential and C-4: General Commercial to C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development: Outlot D and Outlot E, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County Section 2. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone the following property from R-1: Low Density Residential to C-3 PUD: Highway Commercial Planned Unit Development: Outlot F, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County Section 3. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled"Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning,but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 20th day of November, 2012. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste,Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ROSEWOOD COMMERCIAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DECLARATION made this 20th day of November, 2012, by KJ Walk, Inc., a Florida corporation (hereinafter referred to as the"Declarant"); WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the "City") in connection with the approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a residential development on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of such proposed use,the master development plan planned unit development would not have been approved; and 1 WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan planned unit development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the"Declaration");and WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit development,Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof. NOW, THEREFORE,the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, hereinafter set forth. 1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following documents,plans and drawings: a. City Resolution No 2012 - Attachment Two b. Preliminary Plat;Attachments Three c. Preliminary Grading& Site Utilities Plan; Attachments Four d. Joint Tenant Sign Elevation; Attachment Five all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part hereof. 2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall conform to the following standards and requirements: a. Maintenance of the stormwater basin, infiltration basin and associated stormwater infrastructure necessary for the long term operation and function will be performed by the City. All other maintenance including but not limited to garbage collection, or landscape replacement or the like shall be the responsibility of the of the 2 private property owners. All maintenance of the stormwater basin and infiltration basin shall be the responsibility of the City after the basins have been established. b. Maintenance and replacement of trees and landscaping other than that associated with the stormwater basin and infiltration basin described in standard a. shall be the responsibility of the adjoining homeowners' association. 3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that permits such other development and use. 4. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the following deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved: a. Section 11-8-6 C. 2. b.: C-3 and C-4 Freestanding Sign Requirements: Allow a joint tenant monument sign up to twenty five (25) feet tall and displaying up to eight(8) separate businesses. In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances. 5. This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions provides only the Subject Property only master development plan planned unit development approval. Prior to the improvement or development of the Subject Property, beyond the rough grading, a final development plan planned unit development approval pursuant to Zoning Code Section 11-10-6 C. 5. of the Subject Property is required and an addendum filed with County Recorder to this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. 3 6. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected by said amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or representatives of Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. DECLARANT KJ Walk, Inc. By Luke Israelson Its President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2012, by Luke Israelson, the President, for and on behalf of KJ Walk, Inc., a Florida Corporation,by and on behalf of said Corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 145TH STREET WEST ROSEMOUNT,MN 55068 651-423-4411 4 ATTACHMENT ONE Legal Description Rosewood Commercial, Rosemount, Minnesota A-Haampri-lhat . 'il a DQ a r as o2 da l'j U - O8% - ir o ° - j- # ( � 3 Owl - 3„ - .--1 Nod N,n� 3 i r?aa ='!g d9� o iii ' - c: > E w o 1p nmo QaN E i= ;i l ;fill] vWi2 i 8 a w z !--�;�_J sa 11_- f! ii U I o _ — }-- s '8 8 w 8 u oD E .. E N i _ ii4.588°x '.;3m was-3m89�i o a ` g_;2N; ot2 0rNS�2Ni3 o gv16i �3 ¢ugN 3 g'm^ -' 3, ,e e 63m e iii(-'.,1c-,, 1, ..„ , , , <1 ` Y I I 1 .` / / 'N / 4 ' (�\ /Y •` i O�`r mr ro Aa3.00x r ; I`. I F_ _ I 1.1: \ d d LL R 9 v -- I 1 o x�, r I Q r C) ; ?Y AN ! aat � ' s V J li e \1 I Z ��• .��^, `\ I\Iv __ -ln II n x..\ `,/b� o- > —.— °`- rsm [.[ou --' _" 7 Pd9T.�11T1-C::vt to :u^TYI.., �w R it ,ms r% mx t , sot r, 8 li > d E t i \ ! \ s 4 [ — me■ t. !1 3Z `\\ W M \ oa ( Ill S V �� F- c , ; t- ; ,c 0 jet C7 Ij ' C� A,..o.[mx 1 tt CC \S— _i: j �,.. 4� n ,c \-- - --1------- -1 0.--=^' i F'- ch ')?1. 1 3 a, % d a _'� a - -, _)1/ th. i /y r i __W,22tr., afro-,zerz m____. \ i A1411,1Ch tritill 6tit . —I e i , --. II 111 ii II Ci :;) III 11 41 III li VII il 1111 ii-:!-1 .1 Iiii I Igii r— age- ] 002 0 CC IiII U-I D 1:1123 162''''0 CC 0' 0 0,9 1'.:„.•• ca 3 os 6 t tis st L0 = 0 g.- u.., to-',-E°' i II I , - , , ! i 1 ■ 1 0 I 0_LCOC-7 1 1 1 I / I , / --__....._ 1 '— \ ' -- — I i 1 t,' / 1 , , / ■,. ; , 111 III N A I i 1 1 ,,. I 1,._ \ ,,....... ' / ' ., I --•"-'- •- • ft \ / _y____-,..., ----..... \ • ) ' I ' ....., / / ..... I '•••.........--- r i i __.'_} I I I 7// , / .-.... I • ?a ----------- - • I- •••,,, / ..„/ \ .. I ' N , 1 ; F 1:111 '1 -- II 1 , )_ \ ..; 1 - -/,- -- ----1—-r/ / , s ,i _--, i -1 , , N 1- r,_-: I------ . 1 ' 1 _,1 I .=. ' { ' '''•4 ' () ! f i r I ) . I Or,— x I, / • i 1 ' ‘ 1 i , u, y, — r- ----- \ ''''-- '`-'""c77:7--77:---,r;IS::iz';',LLI..-!-;:::i••-i'--ii.04..,,e _ _ ,,=3_, I 1.-- „---- II •.`,, ill HI'Eg-ii tv'' .,. LI 1`j" \\ 0 4 \ - J.- 1.— ‘• I J \ Lig 1 r ) ) h I -- " I I ; I i -4 To k I 1 \ \ ‘ \-— CD ' ,-- / 0 I ' 1 . 1 1 il! C 1 \--- •------;;;•11/1111...4. .• -_-) -, 1.. I , - i . --, -:-:, / 1 C-- ! fr • ,_.,., --_ ,; 7 ' n f- -' )- - 1 ' '' ' ri I / ,..,. ,.. 1 Up li " 1 • C) I - _ ,- ,R▪ I c, I 1 ! '-) Cu I-,..,.... 1 _ 1 r Mrchni4I-Mg' . -40 • ink „,„, , .„i, .., ,,, :44.,-t„,-,,,,,,.,.,\:,.. ii, Aliiii...„-- . ..',-- . ,\ vas__ , - 4/ \\., s' ..-- --2,-%1A,*: all \ \ 'T A- 1-- si yip lbw's - 114,-_ F,...,, `I, ,„,-,,_,=,.. --. o _\ Ir-ee („, V _..)alfg .4 .11te__ kl iJia,. ,„, . gagli of .;( I( 2 ) [ \ .02,7, ) ) ; I.y i � -...., , , 4 !, 111 _, hi: _,.., , (I 06 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS COUNTRY INN& SUITES FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DECLARATION made this 20th day of November, 2012, by the KJ Walk, Inc., a Florida corporation(hereinafter referred to as the"Declarant"); WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof(hereinafter collectively referred to as the"Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the "City") in connection with the approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a residential development on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of such proposed use, the master development plan planned unit development would not have been approved; and 1 WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan planned unit development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(hereinafter the"Declaration"); and WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit development,Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, hereinafter set forth. 1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following documents,plans and drawings: a. City Resolution No 2012- ;`:'Attachment Two b. Rosewood Commercial Final Plat;Attachment Three c. Color Rendering; Attachment Four d. Preliminary Plat: Attachment Five e. Elevations(two sheets); r a,w o is „ t ', -'n f. Site Plan; g. Landscape Plan; Attachment Nine h. Photometric Plan; Attachment Ten all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part hereof. 2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall conform to the following standards and requirements: 2 a. Stormwater shall be directed to the pond on Preliminary Plat Lot 7, Block 1. b. An access easement to the maintenance bench of the pond to the north shall be granted in favor of the City. 3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that permits such other development and use. 4. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the following deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved: a. Section 11-4-14 G. 3.: C-4 Building Material Requirements: Non-glass exterior materials shall be a minimum of 25%brick or stone. The brick and stone should be focused on the architectural significant features such as the entry feature and the room columns. The remaining building material can be EIFS,cement fiber siding or PTAC grills. b. Section 11-4-5 F. 10. C-4 Maximum Building Height: The maximum principal building height shall be forty five (45) feet. In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances. 5. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected by said amendment. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or representatives of Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. DECLARANT KJ Walk, Inc. By Luke Israelson Its President (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2012, by Luke Israelson, the President, for and on behalf of KJ Walk, Inc., a Florida corporation, by and on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 145TH STREET WEST ROSEMOUNT,MN 55068 651-423-4411 4 ATTACHMENT ONE Legal Description Lot 1, Block 1, Rosewood Commercial, Rosemount, Minnesota .. Allachmeifil -r-Aree._ 7 , , r-- . w . -...,, '---'---.-- / / ' 1</, • . I I ,,.... wos WE_ Lita..to. 1 / /▪ / 1 vl 1,2 0 8 Lu N si u.1 = vl _ ..... r, ' I , ,.-g . kl • ; -I 0 L r-P IF, i 'a I P '''. '5 " 1'g ; > t ;a: '•,;.•'1, . x l' 3 -1 17, ; .7: '• 3,,, 5 , • 1- a h F 4 ',i „.. !,, 8 :1',F ''' k:Tr'. E-1 •? 7 _____------Ku---hrourzt. r: , ... V \ \ \--\-A • -- - .• /1‘■;,tovl,,,,./1\4‘,7,(2: ,-,,,,0,,,,-.T.n-17 ,iyi,,,- ,,,,, n:0 ... - .-- ';020 OE_:.___.......„_..■--.---.—.----------•----,_.__--._._._.. SE Rs LH 2.0 DM --. 96 07 ;..r: :. a •., ..2 \ 1 7 ) ''-' --- --- ' \-- "' 1 C.si (1-'e) e S r 1, \ O — 7 , , % 0 -,-. .- ,.0 \ ,r J I— .7,, \-•— .— \ •i' .,., -_ I 1:, D 0 OD 1-- .... ;,., : \ 0 0 g ,, a °:.:`, F - 1 , _ . _-I • • C .. 6 •,.. i `, '‘ u, , :-::',wow.a ,1 -,,,, _, ------,.... 0 '.re. f- Jei• 00•.,,, 5 i',?•.: 2 1 ,,,,, :) 7 ,:s\••• - _,./,-, s-"- _,- ..,•:'ft.,,, _.? T-7-1 • 00 ...,11 /,, ,4 ..L■ I '/e..:, , .-11--res, I CI ( 1...... t....., '-' -''''',i,L • war--mati wax's--' 8 WW1, 3NAVOSIO l, -.,-, 20 06, 3/0 L6,20 Ia, ,.,-, E9 209 3/019.000 !1_, & /, --,,,,,,,., h',--■1:-'1A 1/-7' 0 Z s Illiihr.- - a-t- 1.:". 2 .1•2 --,„,,„,, L1 -- -C i ' 7 I ..x ogLQ ,.. -C- - Z--GOMM 1 ,:, V 1/4.) 1 : T,, 1 i T,I= .; = - Izz:. 5 3,0, 300,43ool0a Iii ; o 31' A A I :7 ,..'z• •f„•pi, -. • • •, •!, F k e k • r r! k k kt 4 =MMI • N •If. / II, .4. ....., --.6.4- _... _.... ; •' -. .... 1.1111* • . ___:"..... .s. ."h. ....1, •.-I / L . ' , -6,i...,• ,i ,,,,W.A. , ,. ...../ `,.................. . I-•••.I' ... •• , •IS ..................... J N • A"-,-2c— :•1" "% . _ 's ' ''' i • , -.'4,..:-ri . ..- - I ,....,•i....c......tao ..i. ...:_:......:, 1 II- if 1 - .7........"- 4. i s•-•.'- s"........"..........-.'" 110 . lill ■ 1.0.Z-,s .ii., 'I. \' •,,,,:s.• 1 1., 4•1/ .., !;4: . .1•-• , 1/.6./. ._.-,....., abs , i■ I.; /'-'••-••• 141 4S ...,, , . , Ss '''"•• - i 6, I •..' _IS ' .. ,....... ..-i ; -6. i• -. .•/...; •' . ..1.• .......,- I, ........„, '. ....." '.••r .___.,..- -- ,- • .1, . .1 1.... ...... ... ,,.. •,,, P: ''...'''''''••...s.,...„..,...„:..s......s.,................^ f ............... ; 1 . 1.111 "s":-.................... ,: • • A . -‘ ' t•i i -,} . . , . . _ : :;•-n"iy,t,.-'... :- .... , . -_ 71..:71t-Y.. -,.; .6::, ,:-..r.5.7:-,. - , • -4,:,,,,N-'4. .- . 4- • N t , I ■....,•,;-,ei;,„ . 7„ . . .- .• - "•!.% st. .•• '• .• - ■I . , .7 - •-.0. . '' - -4... ..4- )- NNN .., . _,,,*" • . . 1- --..--: t - ,. • -...--‘-- • .•-p4•Tt' .••••;....-,L, '-• .. •;^ -.4.4.,*-747.P':--%.•, ,--, /I .r" • •,.,-.1t-.±,t4-'--z.rrste-..,....•,w,', ...z.2.•'.,.,,T. 4.„„ ,.. '• .-..1 4, ' . ' .- ., ' • -a ,• .-.- t .:' ._a-1.. .. •• . ', ' .. t... : .■,4,...•.. . .•`,...;:. , ;:,Ef. .. . :',..`: : , . : Z' ' ''' ''.' . '... ... ".s. .-- i '' -' -.-..'-. I.:1.,1, ;,•.,_'''- . ''': ,...... :4. .,,'..,."' .7; '*' -,,, 7./.. ,27, . .. / ,:."'.. ...,.'. /1 • , . . ,"• .. • !.. 1!. . . . , • • ,.. , i . / "..`-''•'.."-I , 1 ..'.1--..., 1 . -," ._.;.„ . . . ..,--. ----,-...„ 0.11 .... , .. • ' .-,---).- ^:,-. ,..........-,i - ." -.1., - • „ . Allii■ 71 7.-.;:a4; ,- __.,-.:.--, • - - i •: : . . , -...,, Nt,..... - -. Ns • ....Z....4h%_ . • - r. D...,..r. ' --..•- .1 ''.,,,,'-I-;''"'' I\ .• 'k ,, .... — , ;4-/A -e ''\ '• , I........., ---- -•11, -.-- . - t,• iiii , - . . . ,k______ . • v, it- - - . , . tr, • ki. r , . . *....v, z ‘ • gETS .. • it t .,• - - l';',.. I .._..... . . z.„ ... . II.. . . . i I • ••• . e •, i,,e". , ,. i • I I. A • i 1■lc r 7 r. . ..., ‘ 1 - 1. . t , V ‘ \ ‘3' • I I., ' -, \ • r • S ',1 , .?,,,,.. •': ..-- :: ,'. - . . A-I-Oda/Al- FiM - o ?3 J I. d .. i¢'g 7 I i rl� i Paz >. •--I VI Imnu }!'-‘1;' cQi ; f E iii i E jal1[• C3 gl i f ci-=a , • WI +� ± �� NGf 1_,__ r.'�., w u _ 2W -� I-- Yes < �'—f r d y- j- -'41D Sa i{l� __ 005 r.— ;_> •°+o v=i y N'N 10 g — °o -- —1 s S Ill Pu EE . ° ?.. Es , w2 �I 3 z z z,�— mz,b-3 o °=0�� 0, �xd� �?-sgafnyY o on Ayi cr0211:51;11111 ti u W _- g� 3 g4 2; ,g 3 0 �, j a _ I - �`� , `♦ // .9 -l' war T— .° --•?''=-------- ,� , ; N I r 1 I'--- --- a 3 a•�� x&IK1 Y1m` k r i :) r '•s L 7 I c n ICt r-- -- k I.••••• a J i4 f c'I ) I V r L'� L °_ 4 \ L'� I 5 z+'slr� art n.r Ku' •'-r.,, 1 �r Y„•pYM Y,T� , Z ¢ / \\ IVAA\1\IV ry^.A^.-7A ll�rly',1 O ' •T' \ _1 iS'P1TT'IiTVC:�___ i7lY.'l-- '— na.w ,•, +L•s.Raw ,—uo<e.m'I a° a . i I F L 7 1 a: ;_ 'N`1` 0 �f ti N $ ] c • • °; .\ -1 s I 1 V \ I I 5 ■ t x t- <� i � Ai I ° 9 C:^ 0 ` �CC I \A ► ;: I ti „. r t `',, r, <[ _ , — 1- 1 _ _ I � I �/� 7 l — 1 4�6 ~ 11'.4=`- --nn�wvw) <C �� , j'% 0 C �' r 2l "�dr, I k l I It. Ali }T �o=-mT—Aane - `-----m:r --smr:rmr— a Y am. wum,l �i/ -1 I' g1 III > fehtfammaii, Nino . - H 3 A 91 ` W2o a P il � ,s d . N o � cc E g. w :2 t-: s I I i 41 31 3 .. _ 4101 r m r 1 J` — c" _ 1 J. u . �L X111 T �. 1► to /� 3 s , - .. E•1i • ,) is_ .1\ k } t F 3 L } ■. €9 t 7 5 - 41Wri Ili ill fig g t i e *`r 5 t ; 3 a ty �� , .s! e isi„.....L..„. illg s Y• is 3 } {Y 3 Ebt ► � t Zth P E9 I _ j�°_'}',, 44(9 9 ?5 } tf (Ij 3= Qj C:� _ _ II' iIili !. 1 .4 t � 4. ;?'E l! III gs 2,ka Iii' I� I "S yb �//,..,/ 4 3,. �5Y s- i gF BE / t 3. NK n0 P 5 5 Sk g:t Sa S $n9 kr a} a 411 *, i} !ill i- i i tli ag $? s• a a 5,=1-a., .L. s-i S^^e... en If .rnn. (n k _I 5'45S !'i /1/• 1 ' It ti 1111II Z 1,11-1V Y gp 1 E 3 x gyp ¢ gf u II1I-'ll— I— a C=.� y 1''1 'Oil J F}d F 9 E I '.) ��1111 Q 1 ;�I11�I fl a 3 - L,. '-v.1A 11! c� a 0 # }J 1Li P 1 / Wit° jy — Z ly Z i ! 8 B l i . -11=4=1-1 2 J a v e 21/I1 ]3 n , ;! al b ' I 3 I @! a d 9 i k s $ 1 i A 8 ! s 111E1.11 y b s 'y5'f ° Ali Y tE ' M 111', yn I.�YY. Y Fii it li ha. Z �+. Xie P p Y 4 c yyaE g }y III y > y F ► _it ! 3Ea d..-S. 611 9 G 9 1 Is w 0..n. 11. 11,,.. 11. 11 .. on i! ii-PameeptiTen _ Vi 0 111 I 0‹. a 0 u :9, .13 ti 0.:‘, >UJ ce ■-"I LLI 2 g t.,tss LT. till i '.: ell 82g t2iE w li !hi ilii cco' g , .—.--11---: ; • g \\\\\\\\\\\\N i !" g • '%74 • I.g ; ; ; e,;,-.2-■-\\); .1\:.7 g g - I 3 2 .2 2 g g g 2: ; ..g ? ; •.7/ G V ; ; 0 rg. 45 ; ; ; g h, 1 , .2 ; ." ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ' .,„i :u ;4 n : 1: ; ;a 7: : ; X'• • • • 1 • • ; : : : z,, . p ; 7, ; •._, n I: '; ■\ •: .:1"I. ; ; p : 2 ; ; ; ; ; ;-• ; ; ; ,. 6 ; I - • . ,, ; .'"' ; g .; ; ; ; ; ""_- 6 . • ., ., ■ _ .1 7, •., , ..‘ I ; g \\\N.\,,,,x.\\Ns. .1,,, \.; ; .2 ; .; ...1 1 : 4 g k g ; a lo 2 . ° . g . 1 ° 1 1 ° : 1 1 u i ti§ gi.1 If i- I ; i 4 4 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I + + L' a i ki Fig x af?'-:': El . - • - ,A:',,,.-i . <I f21:1 w w I li=-'I; CL CL z ! ID' EP ® Hi ' ,,Z.•,a.f.7%.-9 >- >- ROSEWOOD COMMERCIAL r4,....r., wig t T 'i7;:::'!".* .tiy-'•'.,,,,. kt __ , ,; . ; , Li , ,. . v .., ,,,.., I. t...41 -- ,Irj t„..,,. . . . . . 4 .4. 4104Wi'0 " .v;'', . "•AN. j_.; ii 1 '776 74 =',. a/ma* ,.;: r ,.. . , „,,..., -„ Li. `--' se a t ` ` ..7 ✓ . 1,111 ; 14 i } i• 4 i r iJr : ce• i „- Pe'. l r t � ° . � :air i , 4; , • - . r. � O ,, z: ,l,"; y . `f 3.."-'jt' i` i 4'14.1, rz �` r ay tit i v` :• i �; ,r 'r 1 1! f �"_ 41:1.. w r y j :;___: ... 1414 .. '•t _ /�� x • l �` ......_i w�I�tai ��r� � •L 'J ri ( + / If• :(-- 4:7;, ,--i,_ v/ -1 ' • i ,f`�' - -t i r , }- r ( t. A, `„ j rte•' ` ~ r- /- `. /7 r r., r re.e Country Inn E. S.. -.. f r r, t - ..... f ' ROSEWOOD COMMERCIAL SuperAmencr - • Joint Tenant Sign i . -.J• i ., _ �r 11 ., • cji i „., :,,, , . ,.,' , pr v. • •+ .•:.7. 4•--1"• ,,,,k;, i° f; t.t , ,.t ,.,d -, a , -writ r1'�"�i Y'�.- '+•- Ca. ...,v2-4- .wit. '* . ), . le .q y -4 a�5 ti yY�' �4 r1 r +r � L y1 1,,, vii r My, '4 >4 h t..„,•A� ,, ,t�1t .,..,s \ \ .,,,R !N,• `#'`�-: . i � �t +� � '.,,,k 't' r Y r , . `r v7.7 ` 1 * \-N y i, i 1 Y�*+t -x01"- "' 4� t •.'"Y r ' t t� -.t ,.1 ti v , ,:o$ +, '. e t 'i 4''0. v ':t vsy .�{ _tst. ` fxL 9.f 1.i,ti,?l.t,,,.i'u� k• Y.-!", .,'a4.. .� ,,, *),,A, ` y. tl;t .'... ` iS.� `_titr.�,,..... ,.;.4 F - '" a .. Disclaimer:Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a Map Scale legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning 1 inch = 492 feet verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 9j20/2012 • J n n.,6 e z i �£s9i j� e 4 1 ' OQ Z _ _._ >IN N 002 Oo^ "O a a r- 0ja1+' :=- aA II ;i 1 00' ! - r; i -I u W1--- >-m` F— Li' 3 fo� �s iR � aA3 g l IV o wt. i -- Oc o o a: -- u IT o , aa P !X i l 011111 N2N - LLy N a HIiH' � N�°m _ —al= p. E; :; 0 ¢ i,: = O.,51 Z 1_it-1 SN g 8 g �_'___ Q N _ _ 1, c --r—" J i a .rl8ES ¢:::n °. _tmgEo N Wm m N uY ic�N cc1^mN us w ° Q L____41...--- -; oyYIN-3 °.-! g-04 1A11 ... 8� '3 s°8� 3 8� '3 —Ike . �3§ 0 I r— j o / in,, ,,7/ s/ s ,y/<‘‘ I 1 r ,\ I `` 1 `J' \ d ....4 I___________i i `\-I O i ;i n & '-I 3.4 K t i tcYlki J ii <I 1 i V 1 r L,J 1_ I_ Z __ it r��aru ^e , g� _-^_ IVAA\1\IV —111^/lam • ,,.< "—___- iC'Yi9T.h f�YC:`+"_—•'r"���:D7yll���.'A—aa�`I ' ni .snsw .rnl lioio.aos r, C� .�' tom"... O 1 I : I /1 N \ N. / %%[ 6[r , 1P109 03CLfiL[I,QN y N r.I W W/ Y r N _x N II- 1 ^IW G a s 3 a u 2 i-1t .R a ,-- =t t::i,,,°i!_ 4. i '''. ________---Kre.--7&53-zras< ..,.. ----- ■ _ ___I L '..-2..; ...., -_ -aoo 507.[0.%_. . eedy t ,/\ `;,-'(-3: �•'-„1n 11^('1'� °s•lo °°.]moo \.--\ '"�� `•. 7 /,\7(/',1;I(] J J-:,^,' V 1 ,n, ,.,e1'r .ls _. nsrt ],,,,,, ]04° 00f K[il.., 1p] l I SC[it LR g6 t1 Klf $ \ .-\ w b.- < 5[ 1 )0.1 1 2 J � 1 X H t \1 1 - �,1 H _' 1¢ ) _ _ v O» = e __ 5 it 0 $1 O J Q „ —-I a 5 a' _ <l V- 1 V— VI U _ 0 C- _,;;/i t p < L- ) fr(" 1 4t,./.4 $ ft ) "�s C) I Y\a -•* ∎) r �,, °.[[".[tf a 5, l[[ r. 77,1 I L Yt /[,'Y/ `4,.„[.f, 1 O („..,,C,), .qt�--Trot--5aturnt--' i.,mat [.to<.ncr1 .° _ Mohr 3w.v]59 [' --/,` "1 \ [930 010.JAx / - O L 1 a \ n v r v — Z �i o T OH A v � I'C 3 n I„„11.1 i ? W 1.. 21 7 '. .4 2 S I N e if f 0 I v N ,,� 'X 'ii C _ P f _{' I 1 3nHa■ T V3I3 5w3 II' YleE7 A` 7—� %1 1 E g F° ? 1 2@ &F a F 3s- !i e . :;31 ci.e vg .:1 if fit 1 ou2 p 111 i 11 c)=, co-6•:-;--:.. ,---I 0 III LLI .91 - 1._ g g u.,23 9 lq. II 1, Op elm 6 2g 8 t 1°' X tc0= i=- li illi 'tali U L:■ :.,1• / 7 i 11 ' I . .. , ....( -r-,-,t4/..-. I 1 _:, Isi ,.1 S'Y'01 c:0 C-1 . I . , 1.., , :' I . I . I :; 0 ,' 1 1 '•. - ' , , t , I ,.'1.:,1 / - . - 1.-- .1. / I \ ' I // `...... / / i ---...1,,I N / / _ _ _ / ..,, '1,, NN , , // ‘‘N, / '.c. ■I - ,' \. ' I - - '''''-:, - . ' IsIl , ' I ' ■ 1 ...,, -....../ / , ... I / ■,......„.... N.'",... / .• ..-- ..I_----... -...... , , .. le `- ———- 1 , 1 I.... ■ N. N [-- ----- t i • .... / '...‘ ' O' . ....... Ilk ......., s..... h--------- , 1 , I ',..\I , -.. 041.g 1 I 1 1 , I , 1 •• L...1 : ; ,- 1 t ) 0 Ill .', . \ _ ,n-i ; ! .. i . ; .....—.1 ••••••__ , , .... t . . W, .....- .... — • Iiiairk., !: iilli I _.. _......... _ ,......„ .11,1 g 1 -- • • .c. r - $ :6 k...■--1 ,._. ,. 1 L---N r\ ) ) -----, 1:: Er Er I , . \ /I 1 ) - \ /I 1. - I, :> , ,... 0 ' `‘ " A -- , . ..... . . i,_, . , . , , . ,--) . ,_ , .„ _ __ . . ...... , — , , 11, ,11:11.;.z, , c) • , ,. „L., .......„ .... ,...... , it:i1:.1.1.' ) / ! .,r .0,1111111111111111111r, H....J. .....,14•11,,,41,0:11.-::1-...,---- 1.:-Z - _ -..... -,, r----- '-- 1110 1 . (;) i • , ._ .. , ... . t..„..„ . . • , , c, 1 . I ' CU ,I..."4.;-..--.. I / i1 1.-- ell ) . .. ! ' , 10 ■ E 1 r 1 1 ! ! II - 1 f ,14 rr.�• �* 2 ,.... , 7', . , ,-. ., . , , , . '. - . i 1. ) 11::‘...:';'2... ' ; �.-y 0 a t t .• 2 }t tit! - .4. w P+ ms s 2 A'! j ¢, r,,Z r L a , t. ^rC t,�, ''t r 1 rlM �G .L sic Ai f�r ; ' 1TTTT y4 . •1 a- -.:- I. - ..'..-,-.?,e,... Q ` . 1 V - l' t — , ti • .-:ta , , \ i cf._ I ! - , ►1 f - __ n'n t V t � �: . . Z • -i G•Jh `� r �. a�. to \\\\\ :; L \\\\\VIrd CA Ce ,,ee y: . !' S _ xt-• • 2 IMO 4JC� . 6 �t i• .. -,-,,,,,,,,..-,.,.ri v Voil .t 1 , .4. • Z : .,;•-. 1.4,.?0'.V -•-..... ., .„.,-_ ,,.. $.:"; "s ` d t •* i : -S,sfe�-e, a te .-,-' -.4_•71''� •�"t*s�ifi Q Iv.' �, t„..,;...r `� rte. �'- 1 R'Y; { ` .(r .tY .' �• i'.,l t� �,. LLB !_ \ • !�1 .' Ryr[. 4 '.1 i �i A t tZae • ♦ � ..•yl 1. f1i 1 .., 4 ..� (t T 1`� . . h cl k�l4 -• V., A. Smear W T `� t 1_3 �r a 1 ' ' °' `. ~1 ..�'7Y..4 a +��-ci -t 1.✓ ,'t^ � 69.T• ar- -'C' •-■,: { .,I .. �I °° o —1 v ' � y E q _E v Q�z � �••� g'or 0 "s Y 3 O U G N d@ 4-1 °° 3 a 3 � d � o _- � v `cu 0 U `wZ N N"0 ;vs, 2 2 QJ W s' es = mom , ^ �° I W o` ry u9a N�N _ -i L QJ to c REF `o o_ X0` 3\ O O �_ 0 Q O m m /�/ tY Li. Q1 ° V) r.---, ° o _ova 3z .°.'ACC ! \ C/� in a ' o 0 0 `J i1 j `I ( I1 I I I IoI iI 1 � y 1 I I � ' I,� I ' 11 1 1 . I ; i i ' i I I ; I i1i1 ' II 1i ! l 11 I o . !.._` ( I ( ". -'�) I • I i 11I. I Vi■ In I- 1 *--) . \., „ / - 1 'I'llv: / 1 . ' I 41. .1 t : ► 11 — > I 1 t 1 I - 1 I PN I � I ‘.1.7)3: V / \\ - ! I I -" / 'I ____�',,,,I 1R J j• I ` ____--_ 7- I f -- ti r J ATR L I /_ „ v X1 � C- pp1E ?" SDP.2, 13`,3i_ 1:Er^_L~r5 _..� -- ED ` .1......_.....liwOmAT \ \ / ,1 1 t' . 8 — ` 1 1 \ \ 1 1 1 I 'j---- VOS 1N110VOSOH .I 1. n X1l3 ✓(J i� \ .oi I`¢NOOWV A - ONO-�r18 PION OJSOdOed ,.l. cH,1<.sj 9,1-. ,V 1 1 I . C -- `i a /112 iF 0-- - i1 IN Iiri'I ' c * i 7e51 ' yy e " e e v �---'-- x 3 fgg x 1 i 5 hl 3 222 ll��iIIIII `- �-...� .,.5,•a1E y— a .. 2 Ee 5 >; f ? a 1 i 1 i ° ; I S'c i X' ', ;, 11 a j Y d j g i g z re In.: pt i81 : ices se i5.is , Es ! ,4gpp t�! .'`I j '�; ¢�' E> Ez ' Es.r, `- 3 ' 9 ! s r�sE "e a �e 5, 9, ,Y,_5 g�, f , .11 , , g - si:F ` � - , fie ;; IrIIi ; e ®■ ie it h; 9;K p H 7 ..1!:3 9 i I A $ a P sL: I l i P 3 � i %e4 S 5 1 1 O odeee oe.omocloo,Dooee©oc occoGmeeeo O 0- 1-.� as SI ILIA 1 11`11 E N '. *r 4 t.1,: It. 1� G G E, cF E 11 it I-i �I, 'r li 1■E 33/3;rI _ I Il risi D o c 4 E, o IA� 1 EYEY ' —= ' x111 1 „9 j'-'''a . - II- { jjEE ila 1 ° ' GIf I��1 1 , ®; -J ; G 1I0 I it I.tlli t, I i r, x Q r J ( 'ill' ti u 4 '14' � 1 \ / \ En e ri, "� p -I I 1 1 ■e a ,c 3 `C :D l' ) ' I o� '' I 0_ 1_ _ ill I1Jlj _1 11 O Al III _ 11 c ill liiiii ,.0 lu 1 , i _, I'IA4 = ®, t 1 i.1 i Ill III,4,4 W .i°� Y > I1,� - 11.e— ,- =L. E W r 11 1IIO EE ° ®a - y 'r ! . 0 O__- ___ ._.. I`I I o— _—_ _— t —T i- Ik I U Li- iii Li I ' 1 I �i I 41u J —.1.11j -- 7 III Ir; IL _• V 1 I ' '"'" I .L.._.!.".:--I r 1 CIINIS-1 IN 10/10=11 l.100,I0V00 I I d..,,,r1 1 c.1....1,....11......,i 1.11 1 1 . % ! i 1 1 2 I e 1 A ; I I i d I ———I 0— 1 1 1 41ZMICIMIZZI q:' ---•I q i i 0- §i/a ill tili:111S1 --■ _ _ — J ° i g .1 •i 1 —J i 1 g 0©000 _ 11 II II II ii I 1 11 t ; i 0 I i (11 . I . = , - 0_ , ERNE II EIBLIP,i ---H , UZI/L',1Ei itriZiEl-----I J 0 EMIR matam 1 -1. _—J ,, _I 11 :ti ,r1 )-II 0_ oo z4::: a-, .II o •I o 1 z , a !, 1 171:i 0-1 : ---7 cr■ , t..i.. ; ] 1 I —__ 0- I-411C1CIILIOICIIi.'-- --- C a-, ... I .L.P . ef, a:-;• • , .1 1 I 1 [ [ ' __1 e . . 0- .;-'1111,2111131111ZIE---1 I_ 0-1; - igill1.1111101E1131/I---1 .; 1___J ——i ,1 L__J 0--1 :32P10111111111141 ---1 _j t'ilfi (kilt ..i 1 1 = I . I 1 . • ? _ ? - ? I >-„ i >-, i >-„ 0).' [ , a. o w 1 i.:1 o w Ir. o z- 1 z <.•-, i 11 z.--z. — 0 ! 0 , -1 2 : • 0 1 : ; Ia. J----1 •i ----'-11''',EMIME R3 Ni, --I < *E1Bilaginilln-----1 „-,' 0-- - tICETIVALIMItli---I 87-1.) ' --- -,,.. '.1.i,c:'—1 __J _1 .'V i 0 0 0 1 < i o< a-71 i ;111 CID 1 WWII e I l 1-; i ,I ..• :a --,..- ....-.,,.., —-''-I.... -'---I VIOS3211.61'INN:SIRS-021 — 21 2, 40.Fantr 1 11- onocineM3N CI:MO.402W ,0•0,1 ,1,0.;,,i 0.0 i ! i V i 1 i I i 1 la i 1% . 1 •E 6,-.:1Li_ 1 as ,l'i I I g 1 Pita :i!& i i 1 1,§ 4 t lirit ! i' if 1 It :0 4 1 i i 151;`' tlesql-g-1-1_ -- i 1 ig 1,i i 0 1 0 1;1 is/ 1` 1:41 5 ;1 1 ig-tril g Mi. :11 •. . i i 1 ki i I 11 g did MI i-I/TO I i i !hid g i I I 0. WOO-00900e0(1)00.0.A.ZTOw000.00000000 e cT) _ ..... ....: ... [..I .1,1 ...i.);) C.). ' r_ .:147 —. ---1 -'s 0--- -- . r," ry, 1 l • ' • • ' '' ' ' ' e .:- 1• ,,,, • , : ,..-- II tt ® ,e ' ;I5 1.1- .... I , .....0 ?, ,.• . ,i Is , -\r. 1 i t ' . ._ 1‘ 10 r II Ne • .7.1' _—) !E - szl 01 .... / lib lo 1`,7-J ii 0 13; 0 • I a 4 t-e eli 1; ____ _11_ I ''' • ,-. II - 1, : I n 1 .,,.. --1-61— 1 ti ,,.._,. , ., 11 ii-7.' z, a I , Ill- mimeHr I I _5-,:',.11 ii-,--L.a-17-G 11 1 6i ''''.-7 1 ,, : I- l' e, - 1- , 41'76 6! 1 li t li II n , i • -4-- . : - - J I i", Ift -1'.... \ •\.:-- _ _J1 J.. 'I. — —.<.,—- -1— ---- -,.....q- 0 ., 1..., 1.: i•'a II 1 IA , ■:(7, ;,:, '2 T fl— ' _..0, 1 --t -1 1 1 ? ,, 12 _ am a J../I LS■ ,/ .1...e. L- 1 11 m I y t • 1 1 1 /: 9j : \ .:. .; c.j . -- ii • . 1 1 ;-i: -----;! , • ' '-'' 1 --, .: , .., 0 1 ' -7.1::. . I I i : I 1: I 1,19. ,. •-•,\e,i--- 75... ____,,I..-_-==__ c_ It I 1 , ! ;, ; • ji`r ri. it-, J . ,, _ 4- .11-1, LL T. •■ri 11 I I 0 1 , 6 \ 0 , i r HI vs.r) „ 0 1 7! ...-'. ,!li '... r!si 2v i 6 LI 1 1 il 6 a i _ 1, . , 1 ..... .....,...=.1. _ . ...„.. :. . . ., ._ .,.... .., b 1a z3 IllIii' 0 1I!.,cw.HN eh: Y iT.1. ll i' WGW w- S b g t si s 71113 III il tHy s a 3 :9t'' 5 5F [ 115 4 1 U 1 •11— o sit. cc \ L° 11=11 Z 1 �JREA 1=1t n i '; g P y b Q 1 ¢ i , ° Arl*Ii 1111 • ' tl 1111 'il -s i J s . - d `Y �■� 11=11—; I S . ii n Ai 3 : •. 9 a ,,i- i tll to t flfl : y I,-111111: 3 b ... I \ n—} to a=i Z S o;e 's et a„.. 1�� 1 SS alp,._ !; Ili; !£ i i , . i; I;! s9 € u i Y i I4 g r. y Y ° t yi ! ii S g3I L aE P 2Zp s� 1 s ' trb ' E fit C to 121 1 3e i 2 s i ds3 3 "'Ai ::s 4 y 3”, i s I I t ii. . Psi i e r i iidrti V .S$ i . ill g:Xv Its \© be s Ay e • I e �■ i ■I ::lit,....:(744 '. I I �I t i •C-: . — —(I) eitsel is. 'PP fr* (7,,. lir —1 0�� Itl+j+j, crin gm 1 t;'•,1; ' It 1,c5=1 am 1 :. :4:::::: g 8' 1 z 7:= 1 s ..1.,:z , , •, 1, 1,...t..2222.._01 MIN=lii , S ... , _........t IL'.." . 11,1LI I I!. , a ,/ (71 Alli iilit gt. —00■.....■sr.immemp el, I'aVM-11111111Lilgk ..1‘. ----- pY tF—C� I — --Oil -,.. ..:...... mit . -i E 4- ,-, ...k. 5L .. ! , -----„,...-' . . - ...: ,,,I . • • -sav-7.-.:.-1--- 1 • —a , . . , 1 , •minir.4._ v . ,. \ ---"* ..................i. Ail . _ 4._ ... , ' • '■ il - ' ° ,,,,,• 441. .... 4 A 'NO' ....• '..Ir . -- ''"....-.. .-s----s.i"--.s.'-I...*.'-''•••\......r.r...rrr.............. ....r. , k• . . • -I, - • -1.-.-- 11Y° ;-• ----- 1 • ' 1 ' '4.° •:11 '. . : ... .3.:...;,..'-' • •:-'T4.4.•••• st'- .••.' '17.*******%•••••,......... id .t • r , — , - ., t 111E .„- • J' 1., ••:' • .,. . At •,---:: ,f,,,c; 4 :.. tr -.-..,4•:17-, * '..; '-'-.4.i! ' t' 1 • . , ',••-•V. ..- •t . . - . ,...".....••• ..,,: : ‘.4 A..a.,• • t. ••- ";•■••• 4e ' i .,- •••44‘.;•I'' ^ • \ ---...---— t 1.••• j .. -. -,k-..5-4.,7 :.'7..-.7 • Mgr: IIIR '. ■ ..,404 I ,..4 s . . .. . . ,- ••?,i.;f-' -. 6 -=i .'"' . ..- ., ‘ , .--..lisz.,,.7 li, „;4., .. ..: . ' i /.. .‘ .s: : Arr6a4-.-7t:T..7•.•,.,.'.•.---.r'...'',"-, I°T...:"',4---4Z'.n-..,'.---..r''2-t4..i....r.....A.V-7e.%..7-•. .s;- ...:":..'"--...,••.5••.- ,...., .. 1 ' - e• -.• . 4,4•1.„-,•• •-r:;'.• ,-...4", . - , - ',.:',-•.°!, '- - . N 1 _____ _ ;,' .- . • .....--r4•:: 74.,-.; 4- • - , '7;41 NN p NN, r...... 2 :11.1 N...„\\ ....,.._...,...5.1. ..A ‘'...1 * 1;• • p.17 ,.‘„.-,.: , -....,. :).."''' '.-.. • —r-,: • 4 i• .*.: ' ''''••• ' '''., . :. . 14. fit •-70-: •I!'. i '24:: .. '•*.i't- . .4 • .I " / s•i..4 • '.•'•1- ' 't■•' .'i"* ' •'•4.4,,,Vt".....4..4 -:.t.....-••••.4,44.- PO% '.. ---.—I ;4' 0.1' ;44.'■::,;7- .` , • ' ' .- M!".1 ...i.....1Al ; 1). . ) a? --- J.:',.. . , • ...I' ,,,,,; - • V;l".7-al..-1 ,:. , . ":--. : . ' '-''', . , --- . .- - ' ..- 1 - . -- -,•_. : _ . . 7 . •- - „ . . . ., . - . - . . ■ .. „ 4- . , 7.. ••. e cr'. %;■•■•7 113" '• . - ,- .2. • .1-- ' . 1. . ,.. . . •, , ' t...it...• • ......,.. •• h*,,. ' .1i - - -' I ri'.:*-• -I' "'I% , .. • • • 1-• 16......,-• %144,1 - ' •-.,,,.- . , '' ' • , . • t , _ a I r ..._...... ,,,, , ... ■1:;"‘11113:13 ' ,. , A , .11 • I '1 e.• 10 i k I , 1 ..••••,,, ', • •oforn,' ° ... IS .... . ' ' . . . ... . ::.. , ,..., .. • ... " \ - . A. , • , ....,, ,. ,...., • 1. tb,•.., \ 4 i 't•••• '4 7 ' '. X '37:....•4' 4..-:..1..1 4:4:11*.\\'''T ell '.' \ II [,. o¢Z >o tt[ Ovz c r w ;[i 1 Owj a3 at 8; aft c e .�.a [ W�V 1J.1 !! .- .7 ii 0° NOS z d 9- W r ! ; s °N N i/ 'psi 1 ocO I fill li. . ..e/., ' : , low . ,,,,, ,, liw- , Mr 1 s �',; :- ► s `C lm i ' 1 1 II ` VrI l 4 3c a �11 �mum vi iv 1 0 o i141EW i._ 0 11 r 2 1 I 3 ?s 3 �I Y .'i a �' ��•S 1 01 1 Iii 1 : .3? y �r� --.. .......I. _ I, ' 1,t 1 . _,i I 4or si.••.. ....e•j 9 a r E 3 =Y LIP b 1 =—• :g €i ; t3y p§ns Ie i !.,,„ 6S ! yb ; +195 1 1 LI i 31 1 pi / a 7)g ; sai a S 6'7; ?11 B 0- jE / ;_ 5 9 ii 77 .Y 3 YSS i s flE. a. � .S / / � \ a,� 4 J' I' b e ill S .t .a 3: E ..?• -Y w31 .Y J651 ..s . F e: Sv titi S i i Snnnm aid 33 si g 55 T.- sJf,H 3 a•rnio.o wM cn �' 1. 9 Y n— �m fit--11 3 1 J y u 11uu1 I . 7.II=�l n'I Q .y q r'Ilu°—i ' - '11'IIII d 4 f sa_1'�1'1�1 I 1 [n a S [, L'8 I m r:i°—ii z 4 .1111.11 J 3' a !€ ! ,.3I !s !. :5s $ s �1a 's 1 ipF 9 iitf:t /I: iz i4 !WI; id 1 [ r - r 1g" s Iii i 31 9 5e F.I. KI $ ;la..n. I9_ 11 -= ILO . di ! !! -S i I i i I 1 5,.R<z ‘.."U ----. i 91 6 o gl g g o ' occ,i- ceva ' Pa h' "1 'hi P 11 VPS tV, l'i3 2 t w t U-1 ,(.1). ccu., --- ii -Mi 11 ii u N. - - : 1 g 2 • 2 2 2 g 2 2 2 g 2 2 ; 2 ' .- ''' P ..• ; ; ; ' g 2 . ; ; """""\" ': -- - ' .' F' . . . . ; • - 1 4. " 74 : : " " ; ; :7 er ; 2 2 11; ; 2. : ; ; ; ; , g ; ; ; ..-, ; H g 2 ; .'" P • ' "2 2 q .9 .9 12 ; \;1 2 . ; ; 2 p ; ; 2 *,.\ •ii ;4 4. ; ; 2 ; ; ; ; r I: ; g _ .9 - • : ..:,. ; ...! . . . . .• 1 ; : . ; ; ; ; ; . I 2 .. 2 ■ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 2 2 -2--:.-- •—z---.1]-4=-;•.--• 2,..—^ ; 2 2 : 2 L. '2 1: 2 . . ' g .. 2 _ 1 i 1 / g g 74 --....--'''"■......„.... 1 I I g I / i i s s i 11 1/ i; i 1 4iiit ) 1 gi0 Zig 11, , 1— 1 I I , ' ti 3 id ad 1 I + + M° 5 - - . k i`'‘..1, •t:C PC1 i - ,'-1/ I i L.J LL.1 CL CL ! ICI. C). 0 ail ! ------- 4-1M ,\ ( - Allio4tin-- 4.5*a --N ‘-\ 't . II, Illilp -_ \� \ s�� 4 -`` 1111<!;-..'"": - -.(S. . .T--_-0 <#.°°°.°1°. < r. 61- � r=t �a �z 1 � ,#,. . vtrg JI -#'''4- 4 k ',,Ir2W.1 ga;i6 C 2 ) '\ ,0717, I, . \ )1 k..., 1 . i , , 1, 1 it , ° :� • 1M EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 5.a.Request by KJ Walk Inc.for a Nine(9) Lot Preliminary Plat; a Two(2) Lot Final Plat; Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning to C-4 PUD Zoning West of Business Parkway and C-3PUD Zoning East of Business Parkway; and a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a SuperAmerica Gas Station (12-20-PP, 12-21-PUD, 12-22-FP, and 12-29-CUP). Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with the five conditions. This recommendation would allow the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat in October and,weather permitting, the developer to install the public 149th Street and the private drive before asphalt plants stop production. Mr. Zweber further stated that staff recommends that the Final Plat, PUD with Rezoning,and CUP Public Hearing be continued to October 23 for additional revisions. This continuance will also allow staff to post notice for the public hearing on October 23. The public hearing was opened at 6:43pm. The applicant,Warren Israelson,of KJ Walk,Inc.,presented the Commission with a revised site plan for the gas station showing they added width for the landscape buffer, combined the two lots, and fixed the exit onto 149th Street. He stated they are contemplating having two final plats since SA is in a more urgent status than the hotel. He requested the Commission approve the SA site plan with the preliminary plat to expedite the installation of the infrastructure. Commissioner Miller asked about the need for another gas station when there is a closed station on Highway 3 and another in operation on Highway 3 just on the other side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Israelson stated he was not privy to internal discussions of SA but he does know the location is important. He stated SA initially proposed four rows of pumps and after they completed further analysis, they increased it to five rows of pumps. He further stated it will be a corporate operated SA station. Commissioner Husain asked about the landscaping between the site and the residential area and also asked how the applicant was going to mitigate the potential health hazards from gas fumes. Mr. Israelson replied that the landscape buffer will be a 3 foot berm,20 feet long with spruce trees spaced 15 feet apart which will provide nice screening. Mr. Israelson did not have any information with respect to the potential health hazard from the gas fumes. Commissioner DiNella asked staff if all of the items were submitted on one application or separate applications. Mr. Zweber stated that all five applications are filed separately and can be split so that the timing of events may be different. Chairperson Powell asked Mr. Zweber if this is the first time staff has seen the new site plans and asked for staff to comment on the closed gas station on Highway 3. Mr. Zweber stated that the City has had discussions with a potential buyer about reopening the gas station. Two problems for the site were lack of convenient store space and lack of spaces for cars. Mr. Zweber stated the traffic count between Highway 3 and County Road 42 is very different and that the City has received comments that the busier gas stations on the Highway 3 and County Road 42 are too busy at times and that causes traffic concerns. Mr. Zweber stated he spoke with the applicant by telephone earlier in the day but that he had not seen the new plans. Melissa Kenninger, 2734 148th Street, thanked Mr. Zweber for his time in meeting with her individually on this matter. She requested there be a condition as to the height and type of spruce trees planted on the berm. She asked how the lighting will be shielded from the resident backyards. Ms. Kenninger then requested more information on the traffic design and expressed her concern with traffic using their street for a short cut to Biscayne. Chairperson Powell asked staff to provide background on the blocking of the roadway and what past discussions there were about a cul-de-sac. In addressing Ms. Kenninger's concerns,Mr. Zweber stated that City Code requires that pine trees are a minimum of 6 feet of height,but he expects 8 feet of screening at the SA site with the 6 foot tall trees being planted 2 feet up the side of the berm. With respect to lighting,Mr. Zweber stated that the building itself would provide a lot of the screening and explained what types of lights will be used and their strength. Mr. Zweber stated the lighting should be turned off after operating hours. With respect to the traffic pattern,Mr. Zweber stated the purpose for the new 149th Street going east to Biscayne is to alleviate the increase of traffic going north on Business Parkway. He gave a brief background of past discussions in averting the public from the residential area and stated the City could do traffic counts on the road in that area to get a better understanding of the impact. Chairperson Powell asked Mr. Zweber if staff had concerns with the new plans. Mr. Zweber stated the new drawings seem to address the concerns stated in the staff report. He stated that if the Commission is comfortable with the changes made, they could recommend approval to the City Council and any required corrections could be submitted in time for that meeting. Commissioner Miller asked what other businesses could be developed in a C3 zoning designation and asked for a clarification of the traffic access onto County Road 42. Mr. Zweber stated the main difference between C3 and C4 is C3 is for regional commercial. He explained on the site plan the access and direction of traffic and stated that it is planned to be 3/4 access with a signal light at Biscayne only. Chairperson Powell asked if SA was aware of the plan for the intersection to only be a 3/4 access and Mr. Zweber responded that they are. Chairperson Powell asked which Commissioners are prepared to vote on the SA site plan. Commissioners DiNella and Demuth each said they could vote on the site plan. Commissioner Miller said he would not be in favor of the rezoning given the increase in traffic. Chairperson Powell stated he was hesitant to take action considering staff has not had a chance to review the new plans. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Powell to continue the current public hearing to the October 23,2012, Planning Commission meeting for the Rosewood Commercial Final Plat, the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning, and the SuperAmerica Conditional Use Permit. Second by Miller. Ayes: 6. Nays: None. Motion approved. MOTION by DiNella to table the Rosewood Commercial Preliminary Plat until the October 23, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Second by Miller. Ayes: 6. Nays: None. Motion approved. EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2012 Public Hearing: 5.a. Request by KJ Walk Inc.for a Eight(8) Lot Preliminary Plat; a Two(2) Lot Final Plat; Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning to C-4 PUD Zoning West of Business Parkway and C-3 PUD Zoning East of Business Parkway; a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a gas station; and a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan for a Country Inn &Suites (Case 12-20-PP, 12-21-PUD, 12-22-FP, 12-29-CUP, and 12-30-PUD). Senior Planner Zweber stated that Warren Israelson of KJ Walk, Inc. has submitted an application for an eight (8) lot commercial subdivision that will provide a site for a new hotel and gas station with car wash, along with six (6) additional commercial lots. Mr. Zweber reviewed the staff report and the recommended motions. Commissioner Miller expressed his concern with the hotel being located so close to the railroad tracks and asked what measures were being taken to alleviate the noise. Mr. Zweber responded that the city has received the quiet zone standard with the railroad. He showed the relationship to other buildings in the area close to the railroad tracks such as Waterford Commons. Mr. Zweber further stated that hotels usually have individual air-conditioning units in each room and people don't usually open windows. Commissioner Miller asked about the traffic patterns at the SuperAmerica (SA) intersection for people traveling west from Apple Valley and what street lighting will be installed. Mr. Zweber showed on the site plan the different turning options available. Project Engineer Olson stated that there are street lights currently installed at both Business Parkway and Biscayne Avenue intersections. Commissioner Demuth asked about the noise generated from the car wash and whether or not any noise complaints have been received from other car washes in Rosemount. Mr. Zweber received that the doors on the west and east sides of the car wash will close during operation and there are no doors on the north side. To his knowledge,Mr. Zweber stated the City has not received any complaints from the other car washes in Rosemount. Commissioner DiNella asked why it was necessary to have five bays at the gas station saying he felt it was excessive. Mr. Zweber replied that the applicant states performs their own market study on how many bays they can support and the City does not have regulations on how many gas pumps they have. Commissioner Powell asked if there were a traffic analysis with respect to the hotel. Mr. Zweber stated that staff looked at the SA and hotel site independently and did traffic generations for the gas station and found that during peak hour, there would be approximately 66 cars per hour. Since the hotel would be using a private drive,Mr. Zweber stated staff did not do a specific traffic analysis on the hotel. Commissioner Husain asked about the extension of 149th Street to Biscayne and whether or not that was part of the current project. Mr. Zweber stated that the City Council will be exploring the matter further to see if it can be completed in a short time. Commissioner Husain asked if staff can commit to the applicant that 149th Street will be extended and Mr. Zweber replied no. Commissioner Husain then asked of the berm height between SA and the residents could be extended to provide more protection. Mr. Zweber stated the berm is proposed to be a 3:1 slope which is the steepest normally incorporated in any development. Chairperson Powell asked what types of uses could go on Lot 7. Mr. Zweber stated it could a big box retail store;a bigger store like Cub Foods with smaller stores connected to it;or it could be two side by side smaller department stores. Chairperson Powell then asked what the distance was from the right turn lane to the right hand turn into SA. Mr. Olson stated it is a distance of 125 feet. A discussion then took place of the possibility of truncating Business Parkway and blocking off the residential area. Chairperson Powell asked when the Business Parkway—County Road 42 intersection would become a 3/4 turn. Mr. Zweber replied the 3/4 turn will probably be installed with the light is installed at the Biscayne intersection. He stated that traffic accidents at the intersection may also warrant a change earlier,but that the extension of 149th Street would lessen the traffic at the Business Parkway intersection. Chairperson Powell asked if businesses interested in the area know about the County requirement of a 3/4 access. Mr. Zweber stated that any time staff meets with potential business owners for the area, they are informed of the 3/4 access requirement and the adopted Corridor Plan available on the Dakota County website identifies the Business Parkway intersection as a 3/4 access. Chairperson Powell asked if staff is requesting a deviation from the current joint tenant sign and also what hours of operation the SA gas station will have. Mr. Zweber replied that the joint tenant sign is designed for seven panels and staff wanted eight panels in case there is more than one tenant on Lot 7. Mr. Zweber further stated that the applicant for SA has not provided what hours they would be open and currently, the code does not address that. However,Mr. Zweber stated that the Planning Commission could address that within the conditional use permit if they wished. Commissioner Weber asked who would be maintaining the private drive on the west side of Business Parkway. Mr. Zweber stated that all adjacent lots would contribute to the maintenance and it is up to the developer on how that agreement is arranged. Public hearing was opened at 7:16p.m. Richard Harrister, 3554 144th Street,lives north of the other SA gas station located at the corner of Chippendale Avenue and 145th Street. He stated the SA gas station with the car wash is very noisy and also the railroad. He also stated that he feels that with the increase in traffic, the Business Parkway—County 42 intersection will be very dangerous. Melissa Kenninger,2734 148th Street West, stated her biggest concern is the increase in traffic especially with the gas station having five bays,it is larger than any other in the area. She requested that Business Parkway be blocked at the residential area and that 149th Street needs to go all the way through to Biscayne Avenue. She will be interested to hear the City Council's meeting on the 149th Street extension. Ms. Kenninger also stated her concern with the county requiring the intersection to be a 3/4 access and she requested that the three foot berm be increased to eight feet. Jean Brown, 14879 Brenner Court, stated she supported Ms. Kenninger's comments and also stated her opinion that the railroad is very noisy. Patrick Nicklay, 14891 Brenner Court, stated his support for the previous public comments then asked if the traffic generations for the gas station include trips to the convenience store or only gasoline trips. Mr. Zweber stated the 66 cars in one hour during peak time is of a gas station with a convenience store and car wash. Mr. Nicklay stated that he remembers when the land was zoned residential and the Mayor agreed to rezone it commercial saying that no one would want to develop that close to a railroad track. He stated he is opposed to the gas station and feels it is unsafe to have to so close to where his children live. Mike Brown, 14879 Brenner Court, stated his support for the previous public comments and that his biggest request is that Business Parkway be blocked off at Brenner Court to prevent traffic from going through the neighborhood. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Weber to close the public hearing. Second by Miller. Ayes: 6. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:28p.m. Commissioner Husain asked what assurance the City can give that 149th Street will definitely be extended. Mr. Zweber replied that the City Council will be discussing this matter at a future work session and then they will indicate whether or not funds can be identified to construct the road and authorize staff to continue negotiations with the land owner. Commissioner DiNella stated that he feels this is too big of a project for the space available and he is in favor of the hotel,but not the gas station. Commissioner Demuth asked if the recommendation to truncate Brenner Court could be imposed as a condition. Mr. Zweber stated that staff would not recommend that without the extension of 149th Street. He further stated it is not recommended to have a development with a single access so staff would prefer to have the 149th Street extension before truncating Brenner Court. Chairperson Powell stated that he likes the hotel building and the architecture but is not comfortable with the traffic issues related to this development. He stated there is uncertainty with Brenner Court and the extension of 149th Street and with the potential of having a big box commercial coming to Lot 7,he is not comfortable with the traffic issues. He stated he will be voting against the recommended motions. Mr. Zweber asked if there was a condition that could be added to any of the recommendations to allow Chairperson Powell to vote affirmatively. Chairperson Powell responded that he feels a traffic study of the area including Brenner Court needs to be conducted so therefore, he could not determine a condition to address those issues. Truman Howell of Howell Architects and Developers of Minnetonka,is the architect for the hotel. He stated that the project is being developed further to the east to give it some protection from the noise. He stated that they may add more trees than shown to plant between the hotel and the railroad tracks. He mentioned that the noise has been reduced due to the q uiet zone standards in place and that a considerable amount of improvement has been made to the design of the hotel to make it quieter including less windows on the end of the hotel facing the tracks. Further,Mr. Howell stated that the decision to build in this area was made based on extensive studies. Luke Israelson, KJ Walk,land developer and owner of the land approached the Commission to address the concerns with the increase in traffic. He stated they are doing their best to utilize their land that has been zoned commercial and he is unaware of any commercial area that would generate less traffic counts. Chairperson Powell asked Mr. Israelson if KJ Walk has estimated any traffic generations or evaluated the intersections and Mr. Israelson replied that they hadn't conducted any surveys. Roll call of the commissioners was taken at each motion. MOTION by Miller to approve the Rosewood Commercial Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate an additional 25 feet of Right-of-Way for County Road 42 per the Dakota County Plat Commission recommendation. 2. Provide and record an access easement across Lot 2,Block 1 from the private drive west of Business Parkway to Lot 1,Block 1. Second by DiNella. Ayes: DiNella, Demuth,Weber,Husain,Miller Nays: Powell. Motion approved. 5-1. Commissioner Miller asked for a clarification of condition#2 of the final plat motion and Project Engineer Olson gave an explanation of the park dedication, GIS and trunk utility charges. MOTION by Miller to recommend the City Council approve the Rosewood Commercial Final Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Conditions of the Rosewood Commercial Preliminary Plat. 2. Payment of park dedication, GIS and trunk utility charges shall be based upon 4.529 acres. 3. The drainage and utility easement over the storm water pipe shall be expanded to thirty five (35) feet in width. 4. The final plan for the trunk storm sewer system will be designed by the City Engineer. 5. The intersection of the private drive and Business Parkway will need to include the private drive lanes matching the alignment of the through travel lanes of 149`h Street. Second by DiNella. Ayes: Weber,Miller,DiNella. Nays: Demuth,Powell, Husain. Motion failed with a 3-3 vote. Mr. Zweber stated that the Commission needs to either approve or deny a motion. He asked if there was a condition that could be added to the motion to change the vote of the disapproving commissioners. Chairperson Powell stated that the lack of traffic analysis prevents him from approving this motion. Commissioner Demuth stated she agreed with Chairperson Powell on the lack of traffic analysis. Commissioner Husain stated he would like more details on the private drive. Mr. Zweber stated that a condition could be added to the preliminary plat motion that Lot 7,Block 1 could not be developed until after the extension of 149th Street. Commissioner Demuth asked if the truncating of Business Parkway could be added as well. The first motion for the preliminary plat would need to be re-opened in order to add the conditions. MOTION by Miller to reconsider the motion to recommend the City Council approve the Rosewood Commercial Preliminary Plat. Second: DiNella. Ayes: 6. Nayes. No. Motion approved. MOTION by Demuth to approve the Rosewood Commercial Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate an additional 25 feet of Right-of-Way for County Road 42 per the Dakota County Plat Commission recommendation. 2. Provide and record an access easement across Lot 2, Block 1 from the private drive west of Business Parkway to Lot 1,Block 1. 3. The development of Lot 7 of Block 1 cannot occur until after 149th Street is extended to Biscayne Avenue and Business Parkway is truncated. Second by Weber. Ayes: Weber, Husain,Miller,DiNella, Demuth Nayes: Powell. Motion approved 5-1. MOTION by Miller to recommend the City Council approve the Rosewood Commercial Final Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Conditions of the Rosewood Commercial Preliminary Plat. 2. Payment of park dedication, GIS and trunk utility charges shall be based upon 4.529 acres. 3. The drainage and utility easement over the storm water pipe shall be expanded to thirty five (35) feet in width. 4. The final plan for the trunk storm sewer system will be designed by the City Engineer. 5. The intersection of the private drive and Business Parkway will need to include the private drive lanes matching the alignment of the through travel lanes of 149th Street. Second by Demuth. Ayes: Weber, Husain,Miller, DiNella,Demuth. Nays: Powell. Motion approved 5-1. MOTION by Miller recommend the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with the Rezoning of the property from R-1: Low Density Residential and C-4: General Commercial to C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development West of Business Parkway,eliminating the staff recommendation of rezoning east of Business Parkway to C-3 PUD: Highway Commercial Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. A deviation from City Code Section 11-8-6 C. 2. b. to allow a joint tenant monument sign up to twenty five (25) feet tall and displaying up to eight (8) separate businesses. Second by Husain. Mr. Zweber gave a clarification on the motion Commissioner Miller made which deleted the rezoning recommendation of the lot east of Business Parkway to C3 PUD meaning that without the rezoning, the Commission cannot approve a conditional use permit for the gas station on that lot. Chairperson Powell asked Commissioner Miller for a clarification on his decision to modify the motion. Commissioner Miller stated that he believes the C3 PUD zoning is inappropriate for this particular location and too congested for this area so close to the railroad tracks. Ayes: Husain, Miller,Weber Nayes: DiNella,Demuth,Powell. Motion failed 3-3. With the 3-3 vote, Mr. Zweber asked again if there would be any condition to be added that would change the nay votes affirmatively or the original recommended motion could be made to see the result of that vote. Commissioner Demuth asked staff whether or not the applicant will have the right to make an argument to the City Council if the Commission denies the motion for rezoning. Mr. Zweber replied that the applicant will have the ability to argue his case. Commissioner Demuth stated she would reconsider her nay vote. MOTION by Miller recommend the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with the Rezoning of the property from R-1: Low Density Residential and C-4: General Commercial to C-4 PUD: General Commercial Planned Unit Development West of Business Parkway, subject to the following conditions: 1. A deviation from City Code Section 11-8-6 C. 2. b. to allow a joint tenant monument sign up to twenty five (25) feet tall and displaying up to eight (8) separate businesses. Second by Demuth. Ayes: Miller, Demuth,Weber, Husain. Nays: DiNella,Powell. Motion approved 4-2. MOTION by Miller to recommend the City Council deny the Conditional Use Permit for a Gas Station with Car Wash, due to improper zoning. Second by DiNella. Ayes: DiNella, Demuth,Powell,Weber, Husain, Miller Nays: None. Motion approved. 6-0. MOTION by Husain recommend the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan for a Hotel, subject to the following conditions: 1. A sidewalk shall be installed from the south entrance from the hotel to the sidewalk at the cul-de-sac of the private drive. a. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-14 G. 3. to require 25%brick or stone of all non-glass exterior materials. The brick and stone should be focused on the architectural significant features such as the entry feature and the room columns. The remaining building material can be EIFS,cement fiber siding or PTAC grills. b. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-14 F. 10. to allow the maximum principal building height up to be forty five (45) feet. c. Stormwater for the site shall be directed to the pond to the north on Lot 7,Block 1. d. An access easement to the maintenance bench of the pond to the north shall be provided to the City for recording. e. A landscaping security of$6,682.50 (27 trees times $225 per tree times 110%) shall be provided until all the vegetation is installed a one year warranty period has expired. Second by Weber. Ayes: Demuth,Powell,Weber, Husain,Miller Nays: Powell. Motion approved 5-1. Chairperson Powell gave a clarification for the record that he voted in favor to deny the CUP due to incorrect zoning because it was incorrect zoning and he would have no reason to that deny motion because it was a proper action. Mr. Zweber stated that this item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on November 20, 2012. From: David Harchanko [mailto:davidh @apollodevco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:40 PM To: Zweber, Eric Cc: Luke Israelson; Warren Israelson; Campbell, Christopher; trumanh @th-arch.com; Joe Goracke; Mark Mayville Subject: RE: Country Inn &Suites Exterior Materials Hi Eric, Thanks you for helping to keep us on track with the Planning Department review and submittal process as you prepare for the next public meeting. We discussed the Rosemount PUD requirements with respect to the hotel design and have determined that we are agreeable to using a current Country Inn & Suites prototype design instead of the 'modern' version previously submitted. We agree that a traditional design will fit well considering the proximity to downtown Rosemount and the residential areas. These more traditional designs will also facilitate closer compliance to the PUD guidelines. The building footprint will change slightly but we will retain the basic site plan configuration. I have attached some examples of what the building can look like—we will need to work with you regarding the selections and exact placement of materials. Best Regards, David Harchanko vww.apollodevco.com Apollo evelopment 17815 Hutchins Drive Minnetonka MN 55345 952-401-7883 • WSB Infrastructure• Engineering• Planning•Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite#300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 B Associates,Inc. Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum DATE: November 15, 2012 To: Ms.Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Mr.Andrew Brotzler,Public Works Director City of Rosemount FROM: Charles Rickart, P.E.,PTOE RE: Rosewood Commercial/TCF Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount,MN WSB Project No. 1916-76 Background The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic impacts the proposed development of the Rosewood Commercial and TCF Bank property sites would have on the adjacent roadway system. The site is located north of CSAH 42 between Biscayne Avenue and TH 3 in the City of Rosemount. The existing site is currently vacant. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site development is anticipated to include the following uses: Rosewood Commercial Site: Pharmacy with Drive Thru— 14,400 sf Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru—4,500 sf with 120 seats General Retail— 10,000 sf Sit Down Restaurant—6,600 sf with 220 seats Hotel—85 rooms Big Box Retail— 120,000 sf Gas Station with Convenience and Car Wash— 10 pump islands TCF Bank Property Site: General Retail—30,000 sf Sit Down Restaurant—6,000 sf with 200 seats Apartments—70 units The proposed development sizes and uses outlined above were determined by what may be expected in the area and based upon city code for hard surface coverage. Currently,the hotel and gas station uses are proposed to be developed, all other uses identified in this study are not proposed at this time. Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 2 of 11 Access to the area from the regional roadway system(CSAH 42)will be from the existing Business Parkway and Biscayne Avenue. A new east/west City street, 149th Street,will provide local access connecting Biscayne Avenue and Business Parkway. All driveway access to the development area sites would be from 149th Street and Business Parkway. The proposed 149th Street alignment is shown in Figure 2. The traffic impacts for the existing conditions and proposed development were evaluated at the following locations: • CSAH 42 and Business Parkway • CSAH 42 and Biscayne Avenue • Biscayne Avenue and Bittersweet Way/Future 149th Street • Business Parkway and Future 149th Street The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed development area. Traffic Characteristics The existing and future lane configuration and traffic control include: CSAH 42 is an east/west 4-lane divided Principal Arterial roadway. Access to CSAH 42 is provided only at County Roads and City streets. Access to the roadway is controlled based on the County's CSAH 42 Access Plan. The plan indicates that Business Parkway will be a 3/4 intersection in the future and Biscayne Avenue will be a full movement signalized intersection. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the development area is 50 mph. Biscayne Avenue is a north/south City 2-lane Major Collector roadway.Access is provided mainly at City street intersections with no direct driveway access. The speed limit posted on Biscayne Avenue is 40 mph. The lane configurations at each of the study area intersection are as follows: CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue—Existing Sidestreet Stop control (Future Traffic Signal control) SB Biscayne Ave approaching CSAH 42—one right/through, one left (future one right,one through, one left) NB Biscayne Ave approaching CSAH 42—one right/through,one left (future one right,one through,one left) EB CSAH 42 approaching Biscayne Ave—one right,two through, one left WB CSAH 42 approaching Biscayne Ave—one right/through,one through, one left (future one right,two through, one left) CSAH 42 at Business Parkway—Existing Sidestreet Stop control (Future 3/4 Intersection) SB Business Parkway approaching CSAH 42—one right/through, one left(future one right) NB Business Parkway approaching CSAH 42—one right/through, one left(future one right) EB CSAH 42 approaching Business Parkway—one right,two through,one left WB CSAH 42 approaching Business Parkway—one right,two through, one left Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 3 of 11 Biscayne Avenue at Bittersweet Way (future 149th Street)—Sidestreet Stop control SB Biscayne Ave approaching Bittersweet Way—one through, one left (future one right, one through,one left) NB Biscayne Ave approaching Bittersweet Way—one right/through (future one right/through, one left) WB Bittersweet Way approaching Biscayne Ave—one right/left (future one right/through/left) Future EB 149th Ave approaching Biscayne Ave—one right, one through/left Business Parkway at future 149th Street— All-Way Stop control SB Business Parkway approaching 149th Street—one right/through, one left NB Business Parkway approaching 149th Street—one right/through, one left EB 149th Street approaching Business Parkway—one right, one through/left WB 149th Street approaching Business Parkway—one right/through,one left AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts and future year traffic projection were conducted along CSAH 42 as part of the Gravel Mine EIS prepared in 2010, for 2011 and 2030. The projected 2011 and projected 2030 traffic volumes with the mining operation in place were used as the base line no-build conditions for the analysis. Figure 3 shows the existing no-build 2011 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with the existing lane configuration. Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed development area is shown below in Table 1 for the TCF Bank property and, Table 2 for the Rosewood Commercial Site. The trip generation rates used to estimate the proposed site traffic are based on extensive surveys of the trip- generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The tables show the total daily (ADT),AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the each proposed development area. In addition, it was assumed that all the traffic from the site would be new and that no adjustments were made for dual purpose or pass-by/diverted trips. This also will provide for the worst case traffic condition. Table 1 -Estimated Site Trip Generation— TCF Bank Property ADT AM Peak PM P eak Use _ Size Unit Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Specialty Retail 30.00 KSF 96.61 2898 1449 1449 3.45 104 54 50 9.91 297 149 149 Sit Down Resaurant 6.00 KSF 127.2 763 381 381 10.81 65 36 29 9.85 59 35 24 Apartments 70.00 Units 6.65 466 233 233 0.51 36 7 29 0.62 43 28 _ 15 Total New Trips i 4127 2063 _ 2063 204 97 107 400 212 187 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 4 of 11 Table 2-Estimated Site Trip Generation-Rosewood Commercial Site ADT AM Peak PM Peak Use Size Unit Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Pharmacy with Drive Thru 14.40 KSF 96.61 1391 696 696 3.45 50 26 24 9.91 143 71 71 Fast Food with Drive Thru 4.50 KSF 496.1 2233 1116 1116 45.42 204 104 100 32.65 147 76 71 Specialty Retail 10.00 KSF 44.32 443 222 222 1 10 7 3 2.71 27 12 15 Sit Down Resaurant 6.60 KSF 127.2 839 420 420 10.81 71 39 32 9.85 65 39 26 Hotel 85.00 Room.; 7.27 618 309 309 0.58 49 29 20 0.62 53 32 21 Big Box Retail 120.00 KSF 57.24 6869 3434 3434 1.06 127 86 41 4.98 598 299 299 Gas Station with Pump Car Wash 10.00 Stations 152.8 1528 764 764 11.84 118 60 58 13.86 139 71 68 Total New Trips 13921 6961 6961 630 352 278 ; 1171 600 571 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Trip Distribution Site-generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on the population distribution relative to the site and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve it. The Trip Distribution was assumed as follows: 45%west on CSAH 42 38%east on CSAH 42 15%north on Biscayne Avenue 2%north on Business Parkway Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for three build conditions: 1. Existing build with the proposed hotel and gas station without the 149th Street extension. 2. Existing build with the proposed hotel and gas station with the 149th Street extension. 3. 2030 build with the area fully developed. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the site traffic generation to the existing and projected 2030 traffic volumes based on the traffic distribution outlined above. The 2030 full build condition assumed that the improvements, lane geometrics and traffic control identified in the Gravel Mining EIS would be completed and in-place. Those improvements include: 1. A Traffic Signal System at CSAH 42 and Biscayne Avenue 2. A 3/4 intersection at CSAH 42 and Business Parkway 3. Northbound and southbound right turn lanes on Biscayne Avenue at CSAH 42 4. Extension of the eastbound CSAH 42 left turn lane to 400 feet Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 5 of 11 Figure 4 shows the existing build AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes without the 149th Street extension. Figure 5 shows the existing build AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with the 149th Street extension. Figure 6 shows the projected 2030 build AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with the future lane configuration. Traffic Operations Traffic operations were evaluated for the intersections of CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue, CSAH 42 at Business Parkway,Biscayne Avenue at 149th Street and Business Parkway at 149th Street for the following conditions: 1. Existing No-Build 2. Existing Build(Assuming the hotel, gas station and 149th Street not completed) 3. Existing Build(Assuming the hotel,gas station and 149th Street completed) 4. Future (2030)Build(Assuming full build out of the area) This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations results. Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000(HCM).The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS)grade from"A"to"F"to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection.At a stop sign-controlled intersection,LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all-way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through-street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un-signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The threshold LOS values for un-signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections,or other lesser geometric improvements.LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 6 of 11 Table 3-Intersection Level of Service Ranges Control Delay(Seconds) Signalized Un-Signalized 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 Source:HCM LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as"approaches")or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all-way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: • Synchro,a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies,was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning-movement volumes, lane geometrics,and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic,the traffic simulation model. • SimTraffic is a micro-simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration,and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 7 of 11 Existing No-Build Traffic Operations Summary Table 4, below, summarizes the existing no-build LOS at the intersections based on the current lane geometry and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are operating at an overall LOS A or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, however some intersection movements are operating at LOS E or F. At Biscayne Avenue during the AM peak hour the northbound left turn is operating at a LOS E, during the PM peak hour the northbound left is operating at a LOS F,the northbound through is operating at a LOS E and the southbound left,through and right turns are operating at LOS F.At Business Parkway in the PM peak hour the northbound and southbound lefts are operating at LOS E. All other movements at all intersections are operating at LOS D or better. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appendix. Table 4-Existing No-Build Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) CSAH 42 at Biscayne Ave A(E) 3 (17) B (F) 11 (71) CSAH 42 at Business Parkway A (C) 2 (16) A(E) 2 (16) Biscayne Ave at Bittersweet Way A(A) 1 (4) A(A) 1(4) A(C)=Overall LOS (Worst movement LOS) Source: WSB &Associates, Inc. 2 (16)=Overall delay(Worst movement delay) Existing Build Traffic Operations Summary A capacity and LOS analysis was prepared for the existing build conditions of the site with the proposed hotel and gas station developed,with and without the 149th Street extension.No other development or roadway improvements were assumed with the existing build analysis. The results of the analysis are shown below in Tables 5 and 6. Based on the analysis without the 149th Street extension the intersection of CSAH 42 and Business Parkway will continue to operate at an overall LOS A however, in the PM peak hour the southbound approach would be at a LOS E and the southbound left would be at a LOS F. With the extension of 149th Street the CSAH 42 at Business Parkway intersection will ope r ate at a n overall L OS A in both the AM and PM pea k h ou r with the southbound approach at a LOS C. All of the other intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with the existing traffic control and lane geometrics. Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 8 of 11 Similar to the existing no-build conditions movements at the Biscayne Avenue g Y intersection will be operating at LOS E and F as an un-signalized intersection with or without the 149th Street extension. With the additional traffic from the development area, traffic signal warrants should be evaluated to determine if signalization is justified. With signalization the critical movements would improve to a LOS C. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appendix. Table S—Existing Build Level of Service—without 140 Street Extension AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) CSAH 42 at Biscayne Ave—Un-signalized A(F) 6 (28) C (F) 18 (103) CSAH 42 at Biscayne Ave—Signalized A(B) 9(15) B (C) 12 (25) CSAH 42 at Business Parkway A(D) 3 (26) A(F) 5 (41) Business Parkway at 149th St A(A) 1 (1) A(A) 2 (3) A(D)=Overall LOS (Worst movement LOS) Source: WSB &Associates, Inc. 3 (26)=Overall delay (Worst movement delay) Table 6—Existing Build Level of Service—with 149th Street Extension AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection - LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) CSAH 42 at Biscayne Ave—Un-signalized A(E) 5 (22) C (F) 21 (127) CSAH 42 at Biscayne Ave—Signalized A(B) 8 (12) B (C) 11 (24) CSAH 42 at Business Parkway A (D) 2 (19) A (E) 4 (28) Biscayne Ave at Bittersweet Way/ 149th St A (A) 2 (6) A(D) 6(23) Business Parkway at 149th St A(A) 6(7) A(A) 6 (8) A(D)=Overall LOS (Worst movement LOS) Source: WSB &Associates, Inc. 2 (19)=Overall delay (Worst movement delay) Future 2030 Build Traffic Operations Summary A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the area for the future 2030 conditions which represents the full build out of the area including the proposed development. The P P p p results of the analysis are shown below in Table 7. All of the intersections are expected Y p to operate at acceptable level,LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with P P � g P the proposed traffic control and lane geometrics. The eastbound left turn from CSAH 42 to Business Parkway is expected to operate at LOS E in the future. A table showing the LOS and delays by approach is included in the Appendix. Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 9 of 11 Table 7—Full Build(2030) Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) CSAH 42 at Biscayne Ave—Signalized C (D) 20(12) C(D) 32 (39) CSAH 42 at Business Parkway A(C) 6(9) B (E) 11 (23) Biscayne Ave at Bittersweet Way/ 149th St A(B) 5 (10) A(D) 5 (17) Business Parkway at 149th St A (A) 7 (8) A(A) 7 (7) A(C)=Overall LOS (Worst movement LOS) Source: WSB &Associates, Inc. 6 (9)=Overall delay (Worst movement delay) Business Parkway North of 140 Street The potential of cut-through traffic from the development area through the neighborhood north of the future 149th Street on Business Parkway was reviewed. With the construction of 149th Street from Business Parkway to Biscayne Avenue any traffic wanting to go north on Biscayne Avenue will have a more direct route then following Business Parkway to 148th Street to Blanca Avenue. All primary access to the development area will be off of 149th Street. The only access to the development area that potentially create some cut through traffic will be from the Rosewood Commercial development Lot 7 which boarders Business Parkway north of 149th Street.No development proposals are currently included for this portion of the development plan.A better determination of traffic distribution from this lot could be determined when a proposal showing access locations is provided. Vehicle Queuing Analysis A queuing analysis for both the existing and future 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queuing impacts at each intersection. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. The results found that during both the AM and PM peak hours, for the existing and future 2030 conditions,the average queues in the corridor do not exceed any of the available turn lanes storage. However,at the CSAH 42 and Biscayne Avenue intersection,the CSAH 42 eastbound left turn lane and the CSAH 42 westbound right turn lane,the maximum queues were exceeded. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. Tables showing the average and maximum queue lengths by movement and approach are included in the Appendix. Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 10 of 11 Conclusions/Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed development area is proposed to include primarily commercial uses and is anticipated to generate 834 trips in the AM peak hour and 1571 trips in the PM peak hour at full build out of the area. • Traffic operations at the study area intersections on CSAH 42, Biscayne Avenue and Business Parkway are currently are operating at overall LOS A or better for the AM and PM peak hours with the worst case movements operating at a LOS E/F in the PM peak hour. • Traffic operations at CSAH 42 and Business Parkway with the proposed development of the hotel and gas station without the extension of 149th Street will operate in the AM and PM peak hours at a LOS A with the PM peak hour southbound approach operating at LOS E and PM peak hour southbound left turn at a LOS F.All other intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS C or better for the AM and PM peak hours with the worst case movements operating at a LOS E/F in the PM peak hour. • Traffic operations at the study area intersections on CSAH 42,Biscayne Avenue and Business Parkway with the proposed development of the hotel and gas station with the extension of 149 Street will continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better for the AM and PM peak hours with the worst case movements operating at a LOS E/F in the PM peak hour. However signalization of the CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue intersection may be warranted. • Traffic operations at the study area intersections on CSAH 42, Biscayne Avenue and Business Parkway is anticipated to continue to operate at an overall LOS C or better in the AM and PM peak hours with the worst movements operating at a LOS E for the future 2030 conditions with full development and the planned roadway improvements in the study area. • Based on the analysis completed for the development area the traffic operations and level of service will improve with the completion of the proposed development and associated improvements. • The primary access to the development area will be on 149th Street. With the direct connection from Business Parkway to Biscayne Avenue no cut through traffic is anticipated through the neighborhood north of 149th Street. However,this should be further reviewed as additional development proposals for the area are submitted. • The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact to the adjacent intersections will occur as a result of the proposed development plans. Rosewood Commercial/TCF Bank Property Traffic Study City of Rosemount November 15,2012 Page 11 of 11 Based on these conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Provide the proposed roadway improvements as indicated in the Gravel Mining EIS including as development occurs. a. A Traffic Signal System at CSAH 42 and Biscayne Avenue (when justified and approved by Dakota County). b. Northbound and southbound right turn lanes on Biscayne Avenue at CSAH 42. c. Extension of the eastbound CSAH 42 left turn lane to 400 feet. 2. Construction of 149th Street with two lanes of approach at Biscayne Avenue and Business Parkway with development with the initial development of the hotel and gas station to improve the operations of the CSAH 42 at Business Parkway intersection and reduce the potential for neighborhood cut-through traffic 3. Construct a westbound 350 foot right turn lane on CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue to accommodate the future maximum queues as development occurs. 4. Extend the eastbound CSAH 42 at Biscayne Avenue left turn lane to 450 feet rather than 400 feet as identified in the Gravel Mine EIS as development occurs. 5. Reconstruction of CSAH 42 at Business Parkway to a 3/4 intersection when required by Dakota County as development occurs. 6. Review the recommendation of this Traffic Study as additional development occurs for the possible disconnection of Business Parkway north of 149th Street to eliminate the possibility of cut-through traffic through the neighborhood. ,...1 " ..= _ ,-,. t ,,s .,«^ ,.. , , . a) O t„ `,. ,. ELF , ',..,,- „,., ; , °" = as 1 X ,;;, as v it o enuany aUAeasl8 1 _�_. .. a. , 116 , , [6 L--„, --t‘ ,,—1 —. r — 4 _ anuany e3uel8 +» :"° J + 4^ , ,, . L ji ice_ O CL , .. , t, r – le. -4. Et \ -:4. fir' i till... , j � � , I. CO a) 71-L. • / r. Q' ' '' -1 ...,,'-1:. / / i `R ti 1 C 1 Cli .< a d J 1 1 I— ' q .4.- b ` ' Q —, PnlB ved ssaulsng — 6° a LJ.I •i ()I) _ , `-' Q) a) 2 E 0 r •L- -,,,,, • o > o `»►l . O ,: 0 a) .. W ; — V C • �:�t Ce' . .4Uk, •• .;.` p" F— U L. cc . _ _._ _ _____ k i `t - �, =�1 • *+tin :u.' » . » It z '" # ■tea '' * '"` .. `\ \ + O J' • 1, .- 1 1 - 1 V /• -. " b- Of . ' 1 1 • ' ' +W = ,1 .f : bj R ,.„ . * f I =i p Y wi f a 1.4 J" _ At- t r N c EIV ,, vosom .kw-„ fr; &LA:1j 10' CO Z N r '� rr' N LL.111 8 Q : r 0 t ru ".i.%!. rMM.i ♦w.Peo.ljr �,� a) ,. anuany auAeosie v.. ' .0,i y I .., i..._ 4„, ‘,....*, . :rAvLueI ua8 , r d O as Cl) Ai. 1- • . CO LL. • w L. \ U LL■ b cQ o N• LJ L C . 4 4 II itt o 0 c..) r: 4( 4.41r ' it, 4...,.. , i.,-,'- : , . it* ,.. , - N ci, ti_-a °, + ,., o 0 L c m.4 .0 4• C !_ a q W , A..... . PM8 NJed ssauisna 0 t W . is w / 1t1O23WW00 OOM3SOI 1 Cr ,Y Ca : C Li A. = m M i E 0 . cr) . U 0 3dtersweel Ct ° °' w c9 .A, 0 10 ; w d co 0 m n (. I-- if )1 J¢ a -0 0 0 o B,sci • u 11 .= (rrl)06 —+ o 0 o m (o )0 X X '1 Z r < O s 'al CV ^r SL(11) _ >s CY 3 .L 0£(OZ 1 4 1 %, r zl(zt,1 CO .X (01.)01 .s 1 tt P ›, w Co tV 01 (0£) ". of ^ o — o a) I (0) 09 " = r CV."FI1StT S.' 'kwy L N a) E O U ›, o O � o s ottstl v CC r; .s- t 11 I a) 4- o 4/ J 11 L. r sz tot) �1 O L u __ .. LLI— U o a > 19 16 J ! 1 tt r in ea WI Hl r F o 1.01►!L I z Robert Trail S ^`I z L O W 7 D V W O _ti i^lt n3rr�: '� .. , (...r)oe s..,,, cr.) .!: , ...: CV S%1/e,, O � m C �t 15-5 L'co 03 CD o L E ty, N ▪ 0 = ..._E V W ap I i� o ` "-'pttersweet Ct w d L CD W Q a 10 N J _ Biscayne Ave a �i �= X X t m r r r O B'.= 1 M/ o c CN g , c SC (C9 ) ', , is. r N ° ,co v° of (OZ) 'x d 11 I. r at tzo) w (9£ )Z£ J ti tt r OM ti. s— t1 a / (1 ) N CMMC so .-) R W 5 4- s (sz) C- LL cc I- 4 V r 6Z(Zt) Q - U Jd (1 )1 J .4 r RS11 �--- 0■ (11I0Z — ;_- ` �(� Cn ,7, !1 F" �w�( L N (1 )1 • C 8S (60 ) O 0 0 4 O 0 0 8£ 18S ) O O g et (Sl ) fY 0 10 1 — } V «Z. 1 (1 ) `•- lo )0 C/5 O L p 0 0 0 11 ` r sz(et•) r CC(00,)£01 6 H U a o o (ss)is J 1 tt r L,r) a (1 )1 m M ' O y N w Robert Trail S 0 ? t 0 W 7 O V I O -J \ M G r`I V N • •+OO Q\m Y W `t s1.1e,°E 1Cr) 'r 7.m a 1'• X t oa _ Lan co $ t co- co _1.4 0 E v K «t. Et(6116) ° W 56ttersweet CI Z ED c ") r Et(a) W d L d • N Biscayne , - 11 11 1= +0 (406)06 m m F I X X il (961£6 — - X X T a Ave M iS , to N SVO y co St hi l V _ C9 ` M ~; 2 ° .L of tai 1N/ 11 W 4 1 1a r z6 In (9E)z£ .0 1 11 P ■ ›, (OE►OE 2 M e F o li CI) 0- (0609 SR - t► % 0 L ` - , 6161 I N CU 'S s (sz) X LL d S. r ez(u t ' 0 E--,3(616 . 4 r -' v , — CO 4'. RS .— 0 (Li.)9Z Z' j — — a Ines.- •kw,; i co (6 16 — O c c m O c �' o t tzi6E ) -a = E O4— N 0 0 0 . EEi£s1 O - o 06 ls►► 0 (0 1 : . o v W C.7> i 666 ) N o tit u a ! ° ° ° J U S. r sz(et l O i 1»)611 � : _ re I— U > _ ° (Wu J '1 11 P CZ u 1 a I e e 9 l6 ►6 'Z' ao O (OS)IS _. 'o w 1 Robert Trail S ,,,1 = z o2 W• v 2 o W m - r N no 7'- IPTI,4n.40,, V .' O m m S H ' /e s.c J K t!o m, �' a +m 03 co N a> J «L C6t16181 0 trZ r LOt(LSt) I- LIJ w Qa —i (L )l J i r J 'v 8 8 ' foiilosl -1. " = 04 (98 189 N 'x ?7 M a V) OtZ(on 1 to r v a P. w, ° «- 06(os I L .d, p J 44 4 ir os(oft) L- (LIZ)9lt 4 1 tt r ` Co 111 cu Wales' 1 = ° — I, ..- ' O L zs (cot; ca �, _ a 4 CO ` L° «� Cl (6Z ) LL ' CC d It 99ltltl) 1 o U T. U (61 181 1 i r , ft... (p as(01 )91 T' - ".2 0 w — (s )r — — ( O � U C o at(so 1 .a s s O }, a) 0 0 0 •— salted O o o t SZ Is'1 o (0 ) - v -*--- . v 0 101 Q l• )8 e o r y I_ J 11 oto ) O 'Is -~t(ZtLlt — o o Ce I-- U y Q — 0 0 tt r to ro 1010 A Io io = o N 4 , M N o W `�° ( IttZ1681 7 ° Z RU(sa:; trail . Z 1. 0 W k 5 ti w I o° - r . l i-i CZ) `- - - C m ,'w, ' CV s fw$J f� ,6-,g . io •, ip, n 03 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 11/8/2012 Existing AM Measures of Effectiveness 10o1919-76o\TA uwsy cnroynvesnng MOEs ris]MOEs Intersection Average&Maximum Traffic Queueing(feet) — - Total Delay by _ Level of Service LOS by LOS by Forecast Volumes Movement Approach Intersection E Appr (SecNeh) by Movement (SecNeh) (SecNah) Appr Left-Turn Through Right-Turn c Location _ (.3 L : T R Total L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS Ave Max Storage Ave Max Ave Max Storage _ _ Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue NB 12 30 75 117 35 23 11 E C B 17 C NB 9 37 300 34 107 c 3:CSAH 42&Biscayne WB_ 44 _ 352 10 406 10 1 1 B A A 2 A 3 A WB 14 48 300 '5 SB 10 30 60 100 15 23 6 C C A 12 B SB 7 25 300 29 76 EB 50 833 32 915 3 1 1 A A A 1 A EB 7 30 300 1 11 300 °e NB 25 1 10 36 22 0 5 C A A _ 16 C _NB 16 47 6 27 c 6:CSAH 42&Business Pkwy WB 30 392 3 425 9 1 , 0 A A A 2 A 2 A WB 14 53 300 SB 9 1 16 26 23 18 4 C C A 11 B SB 7 39 300 9 26 EB 5 895 45 945 5 1 6 A A A 1 A EB 9 300 8 300 ° NB 0 88 3 91 0 2 1 A A A 2 A NB C WB 10 0 3 13 4 0 3 A A A 4 A 1 A WB 13 36 9:Bittersweet&Biscayne � SB 1 90 0 91 3 0 0 A A A 0 A SB 5 300 c EB 1 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB K:\01916-760\Traffic\Synchro\AM-Existing MOEs TAB:IMOEs) 11/9/2012 SimTraMc Simulation Summary 111912012 Existing PM Measures of Effectiveness 1.01915-7501r,. v hrcVPM-Existing MOesm]MOE, Intersection Average&Maximum Traffic Queueing(feet) Total Delay by LOS by LOS by — Level of Service c Forecast Volumes Movement by Movement Approach Intersection Left-Turn Through Right-Turn t Location Appr (SecNeh) (SecNeh) (SecNeh) Appr O L T R Total L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS Ave Max Storage Ave Max Ave Max Storage Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue °e NB 42 20 64 126 75 41 14 - E B 36 E NB 30 89 300 34 123 _ m 3:CSAH 42&Biscayne WB 32 732 10 774 6 2 1 A A A 2 A 11 B WB 10 42 300 1 26 9 SB 10 30 110 150 52 96 66 — 71 = SB 7 33 300 112 309 m EB 170 492 10 672 11 1 0 _ B A A 3 A _ EB 41 109 300 5 300 °m NB 40 1 15 56 20 35 5 C E A 16 C NB 23 61 10 36 w 6:CSAH 42&Business Pkwy WB 10 866 8 884 4 1 1 A A A 1 A 2 A WB 4 23 300 a SB 6 1 10 17 23 37 6 C _ E _ A _ 13 _ B SB 5 30 300 8 21 _ m _ EB_ 17 650 20 _687_ 11 1 5 B A A 1 A EB 7 25 300 °e NB 0 190 11 201 0 1 1 A A A 1 A NB I" 9:Bittersweet&Biscayne WB 6 0 2 8 5 0 2 A A A 4 A 1 A WB 7 31 SB 3 144 0 147 5 1 0 A A A 1 A SB 6 300 m EB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB K:\01916-760\Traffic\Synchro\PM-Existing MOEs TAB:[MOEs] 11/9/2012 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 11/15/2012 Existing Build AM(No 149th Street Extension) Measures of Effectiveness xrnl9l6-761hirzmc synmlolAva sing 9utl No last,st...NO. Intersection Average&Maximum Traffic Queueing(feet) — Total Delay by LOS by LOS by Level of Service Forecast Volumes Movement Approach Intersection o by Movement Left-Turn Through Right-Tum c Location Appr (SecNeh) (SecNeh) (SecNeh) Appr V Ave Max Ave Max Ave Max L T R Total L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS Storage Storage _ °e - Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue NB 12 30 75 117 57 37 19 all , C 28 D NB 11 38 300 44 130 2 3:CSAH 42&Biscayne WB- 44 386 10 440 14 1 1 B A A 2 A 6 A WB 17 50 300 m SB _ 32 30 73 135 28 44 _ 14 D E _ B 25 _ C SB 24 130 300 44 161 m EB 62 864 32 958 4 2 1 A A A 2 A EB 9 35 300 6 1 16 300 Ti NB 25 1 10 36 34 31 6 0 0 A 26 D NB 17 63 6 26 m 6:CSAH 42&Business Pkwy WB 30 392 50 472 9 1 1 A A A 2 A 3 A WB 15 48 300 1 14 300 SB 51 1 51 103 25 24 4 D C A 15 B SB 30 91 300 19 54 _ m_ EB 45 895 45 985 8 1 6 A A _ A 2 A - EB 11 46 300 4 300 y NB 29 8 1 38 4 5 4 A A A 4 A NB 18 38 75 6 25 H 7C 11:149th&Business Pkwy WB 57 1 1 59 9 9 2 A A A 9 A 7 A WB 27 54 300 3 27 c ' SB 0 26 1 27 0 6 4 A A A 6 A SB 20 44 D EB 1 1 20 _ 22 3 4 7 A A A 7 A EB 1 24 14 30 300 °e NB 0 39 58 97 0 0 0 A A A 0 A NB 1 17 75 1 13:Access&Business Pkwy WB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 1 A WB c SB 0 103 0 103 0 1 0 A A A 1 A SB D EB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB K:\01916-760\Traffic\Synchro\AM-Existing Build_No 149th St MOEs.xls TAB:[MOEs] 11/15/2012 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 11/15/2012 Existing Build PM(No 149th Street Extension) Measures of Effectiveness K.915-760%rnrts,sr mog.£.Ianv BUtl W iasm s uce:dsl6>OEs Intersection Average&Maximum Traffic Queueing(feet) — Total Delay by LOS by LOS by Level of Service Forecast Volumes Movement Approach Intersection by Movement Left-Turn Through Right-Turn c Location Appr (SecNeh( (SecNeh) (SecNeh) Appr O L T R Total L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS Queue Ave Q Max u ea Storage Queue Ave Max Queue Ave Queue Max Queue Storage w NB 42 20 64 126 148 56 20 C 70 = NB 57 150 300 39 119 tO 3:CSAH 42&Biscayne WB 32 771 10 813 6 2 2 A A A 2 A 18 C WB 9 38 300 1 24 ',7 SB 36 30 126 192 149 122 86 103 1= SB 57 242 300 146 358 EB 184 526 10 720 12 1 1 B A A 4 A EB 43 101 300 8 300 m NB 40 1 15 56 42 30 5 E D A 31 D NB 30 91 11 31 c 6:CSAH 42&Business Pkwy WB 10 866 63 939 5 2 2 A A A 2 A 5 A WB 3 24 300 3 1 18 300 SB 55 1 50 106 79 35 7 - E A 44 E SB 45 114 300 29 125 EB 63 650 20 733 14 1 5 B A A 2 A EB 23 58 300 °y NB 32 25 1 58 4 6 2 A A A 5 A NB 19 46 75 15 30 w 11:149th&Business Pkwy WB 68 1 1 70 9 0 3 A A A 9 A 7 A WB 27 56 300 1 27 SB 1 17 1 19 5 6 3 A A A 6 A SB 1 18 300 12 31 EB 1 1 21 23 0 5 7 A A A 7 A EB 1 24 14 30 300 °e NB 0 58 69 127 0 0 1 A A A 1 A NB 1 17 75 To 13:Access 8 Business Pkwy WB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 2 A WB co .E' SB 0 107 0 107 0 3 0 A A AI 3 A SB 4 52 D EB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB K:\01916-760\Traffic\Synchro\PM-Existing Build_No 149th St MOEs.x(s TAB:[MOEs] 11/15/2012 Sim Traffic Simulation Summary 11/13/2012 Existing Build AM(With the 149th Street Extension) Measures of Effectiveness K101915-7601in v moVAM-Emmng Bow MOEsmjMOEs Intersection Average&Maximum Traffic Queueing(feet) — Total Delay by LOS by i LOS by Level of Service ii. Forecast Volumes Movement Approach Intersection C. Location Appr (SecNeh) by Movement (SecNeh) I (SecNeh) Appr Left-Turn Through Right-Turn o u L T R Total L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS Oueue Ave Qu Max Storage Ave Queue Queue Queue Max Ave Max Queue Storage ea 8i NB 12 30 75 117 32 35 15 D E C 22 C NB 9 28 300 43 136 3:CSAH 42&Biscayne WB 44 363 33 440. 13 1 1 B A A 2 A 5 A WB 17 56 300 1 10 'w SB 32 31 60 123 24 25 8 C D A 16 C SB 18 70 300 31 84 m EB 50 841 32 923 4 2 1 A A A 2 A EB 8 34 300 1 12 300 3, NB 25 1 10 36 25 0 5 D A A 19 C NB 16 46 7 26 6:CSAH 42&Business Pkwy WB, 30 392 14 436 10 1 1 B A - A 2 A 2 A WB 14 55 300 a SB 17 1 51 69 24 _ 28 4 _ C D A 8 A SB 10 42 300 18 46 EB 45 _895 45 985_ 8 1 6 A A A 2 A EB 12 36 300 4 300 NB 23 88 3 114 3 2 1 A A A 2 A NB 1 17 150 TZ H w 9:149th&Biscayne WB 10 1 3 14 5 4 2 A A A 4 A 2 A WB 8 22 SB 1 90 13 104 4 1 0 A A A 1 A SB 5 300 7 EB 12 1 22 35 5 4 7 A A A 6 A EB 8 28 15 27 300 1 NB 24 9 1 34 4 5 3 A A A 4 A NB 14 32 75 6 25 11:149th&Business Pkwy WB 26 5 1 32 8 5 2 A A A 7 A 6 A WB 18 42 300 4 28 SB 1 26 1 28 0 6 3 A A A 6 A SB 6 300 22 60 m EB 1 3 17 21 0 6 7 A A A 7 A EB 3 30 13 30 300 ° NB 0 35 27 62 0 0 0 A A A 0 A NB 13:Access&Business Pkwy WB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 1 A WB at SB 0 70 0 70 0 1 0 A A A 1 A SB EB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB K:\01916-760\Traffic\Synchro\AM-Existing Build MOEs.x(s TAB:[MOEs] 11/15/2012 SimTraffiic Simulation Summary 11113/2012 Existing Build PM(With the 149th Street Extension) Measures of Effectiveness 14.101915-7sm7ntr.SyosmoVpnFxim.9 Bub uces.eluoe. Intersection Average&Maximum Traffic Queueing(feet) — Total Delay by Level of Service LOS by LOS by c Forecast Volumes Movement by Movement Approach Intersection Left-Turn Through Right-Turn '• Location Appr (SecNeh) (SecNeh) (SecNeh) Appr O L T R Total L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay' LOS Ave Max Storage Ave Max Ave Max Storage Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue °w NB 42 20 64 126 143 66 28 D 72 = NB 57 187 300 47 179 3:CSAH 42&Biscayne WB_ 32 744 37 813 7 3 2 A A A 3 A 21 C WB 8 35 300 2 22 a TC SB 36 30 110 176 157 166 106 127 _ SB 67 247 300 156 342 D EB 170 500 10 680 16 1 1 C A A 5 A EB 49 150 300 9 °m NB_ 40 1 15 56 39 17 4 E C A 28 D NB 31 85 9 26 TC 6:CSAH 42&Business Pkwy WB 10 866 20 896 5 2 2 A A A 2 A 4 A WB 5 28 300 3 - --- - T1 SB 15 1 50 66 48 27 7 E D A 17 C SB 13 46 300 20 47 EB 63 650 20 733 15 1 6 C A A 2 A EB 26 71 300 ° NB 27 190 11 228 3 1 1 A A A 1 A NB 2 _ 27 150 I' 9:149th&Biscayne WB 6 1 2 9 31 11 3 D B A 20 C 6 A WB 6 30 I' SB 3 144 16 163_ 4 8 5 A A _ A 8 A SB 10 300 11 77 7 EB 14 1 26 41 7 7 31 A A D 23 C EB 7 32 20 70 300 °e NB 27 25 1 53 4 5 3 A A A 4 A NB 18 41 75 14 34 1 11:149th&Business Pkwy WB 31 5 . 1 37 8 6 3 A A A 8 A 6 A WB 20 47 300 5 32 '5 c SB 1 17 1 19 5 6 2 A A A 6 A SB 1 12 300 16 36 7 EB 1 3 18 22 4 6 6 A A A 6 A EB 4 30 11 30 300 Ts' NB 0 54 31 85 0 1 1 A A A 1 A NB ff 7.0 13:Access&Business Pkwy WB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 1 A WB SB 0 66 0 66 0 1 0 A A A 1 A SB i 7 EB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A EB i K:\01916-760\Traffic\Synchro\PM-Existing Build MOEs.xls TAB:[MOEs] 11/15/2012 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 11/912012 2030 AM Measures of Effectiveness K,n,9,6-T6vTnmawr=9,ovnMaow MOE..b]MOE. _ Intersection Average&Maximum Traffic Queueing(feet) — Total Delay by LOS by LOS by 9 Level of Service Forecast Volumes Movement by Movement Approach Intersection Left-Turn Through Right-Turn ..f: Location Appr (SecNeh) (SecNeh) (SecNeh) Appr O L T R Total L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS Ave Max Storage Ave Max Storage Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Ave Queue NB 80 90 210 380 27 33 16 C C B 22 C NB 43 101 300 45 94 56 130 300 WB 110 553 147 810 38 15 7 D B A 17 B 20 C WB 62 140 300 78 155 32 87 300 3:CSAH 42&Biscayne - - - SB 166 90 100 356 26 24 5 C C A 20 B SB 78 175 300 42 108 21 61 300 W EB 70 1130 45 1245 35 22 7 D C A 22 C EB 41 104 400 186 353 19 112 300 Ti NB 0 0 25 25 0 0 9 A A A 9 A NB 10 34 6:CSAH 42&Business Pkwy WB. 45 -6.23 66 734 22 4 4 C A - A 5 A 6 A WB 25 87 300 4 1 25 300 a SB 0 1 189 190 0 0 7 A A A 7 A SB 44 108 m EB 207 1220 70 1497 17 4 7 C A A 6 A EB 58 153 300 _ _ _______ °e NB 107 197 3 307 5 2 2 A A A 3 _ A NB 16 69 150 li w 9:149th&Biscayne WB 10 1 3 14 8 7 3 A A A 6 A 5 A WB 7 25 SB 1 190 68 259 0 2 1 A A A 2 A SB 6 m EB 58 1 156 215 12 14 9 B B A 10 A EB 22 56 37 97 300 Ti NB 166 18 52 236 5 6 3 A A A 5 A NB 39 75 75 29 85 c 11:149th&Business Pkwy WB 74 102 1 177 9 8 3 A A A 8 A 7 A WB 28 51 300 34 71 SB 18 16 4 38 9 7 3 A A A 7 A SB 11 31 300 17 36 m EB 4 109 88 201 6 8 8 A A A 8 A EB 38 67 29 53 300 o NB 0 236 38 274 0 1 1 A A A 1 A NB 1 19 1 17 75 TC 13:Access&Business Pkwy WB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 A 1 A WB n SB 0 178 0 178 0 1 0 A A A 1 A SB 6 c m EB 0 0 11 11 0 0 3 A A A 3 A EB 10 31 K:\01916-760\Traffic\Synchro\AM-2030 MOEs TAB:[MOEs] 11/9/2012 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 11/9/2012 2030 PM Measures of Effectiveness u,o,9,s7so\Tn ,sm=n,ENwe-mw MvE.,eiuces Intersection Average&Maximum Traffic Queueing(feet) Total Delay by LOS by LOS by 9 Level of Service 72 Forecast Volumes Movement Approach Intersection c Location Appr (SecNeh) by Movement (SecNah) (SecNeh) Appr Left-Turn Through Right-Turn L T R Total L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS Ave Max Storage Ave Max Ave Max Storage Queue Queue Queue Queue_Queue Queue NB 160' 80 170 410 35 44 11 D D B 27 C NB 91 200 300 51 125 41 101 300 e 3:Biscayne&CSAH 42 WB 80 985 163 1228 53 42 17 D D B 39 D 32 C WB 67 288 300 251 423 85 323 300 SB 213 121 210 544 33 38 16 C D B 27 C SB 117 219 300 69 143 71 170 300 BE 340 652 30 1022 50 17 4 D B A 28 C EB 211 ate 400 103 272 10 44 300 °e NB 0 0 15 15 0 0 5 A A A 5 A NB 8 32 c 6:CSAH 42&Business Pkwy WB 15 1267 73 1355 16 8 8 C A A 8 A 11 B WB 8 41 300 8 1 23 300 a - 'N SB 0 0 244 244 0 0 23 A A C 23 C SB 93 132 c - D EB_275_1005 30 1310_ 44 4 2 E A _ A 13 B EB 153 286 300 26 332 _ ° NB 153 420 11 584 6 2 2 A A A 3 A NB 28 82 150 n WB 6 1 2 9 21 21 3 C C A 17 C 5 A WB 8 28 e4 9:Biscayne&149th/Bittersweet - r. SB 3 334 86 423 3 3 1 A A A 3 A SB 12 300 1 11 EB 78 1 203 282 25 0 7 D A A 11 B EB 31 83 _ 48 102 300 I?, NB 171 29 103 303 7 8 5 A A A 6 A NB 47 96 75 40 91 ff c 11:Business Pkwy&149th WB 116 101 2 219 7 7 5 A A A 7 A 7 A WB 38 76 300 34 71 a SB 19 10 5 34 5 7 4 A A A 5 A SB 11 31 300 13 31 D EB 4 127 86 217 5 8 4 A A A 6 A EB 41 82 33 57 300 m NB 0 304 45 349 0 1 1 A A A 1 A NB C. 13:Business Pkwy&Access WE, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A 0 - A 2 A WB c SB 0 213 0 213 0 4 0 A A A 4 A SB 16 115 D EB 0 0 32 32 0 0 9 A A A 9 A EB 23 66 K:\01916-760\Traffic\Synchro\PM-2030 MOEs TAB:[MOEs] 11/9/2012