Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.c. Rudy's Redeye Grill (Rosemount Crossing) PUD Major Amendment Case 05-22-AMDAGENDA ITEM: Rudy's Redeye Grill (Rosemount Crossing) PUD Major Amendment, Case 05- 22 -AMD AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AG ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution, Draft PUD Amendment Agreement, 05/24/05 PC Minutes, Site Plans, Elevations, Resolution 2004 -130, Original site plan excerpt, Benshoof Associates Parking Study APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the PUD Major Amendment for Rudy's Redeye Grill subject to conditions, and Motion to authorize execution of the PUD Amendment agreement for Rudy's Red Eye Grill. 4 ROSEMOLIN CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: June 21, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISSUE The requested PUD Amendment concerns the proposed restaurant for the Rosemount Crossing commercial development on the northwest corner of County Road 42 and South Robert Trail The reason for the amendment is because the restaurant building will not share the same architectural character as the rest of the development PUD. However, it is still part of the PUD and is integral to the entire development with circulation and shared parking as was approved with the original PUD. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING On May 24, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a pubhc hearing as required for the PUD Amendment. The Commissioners had questions regarding the appearance and matenals of the trash enclosure and the alignment of the sidewalk and connections Staff explained the fixed points of the sidewalks as they cross the dnveways The Commissioners did not alter the recommendation Another Commissioner asked if they had to approve the pylon sign Staff explained that the pylon signage was already approved with the original PUD. No one from the audience provided comments at the pubhc hearing other than the architect and a representative of the developer. After closing the public hearing, the Commissioners moved the recommended action One of the recommended conditions of approval required preserving a pedestrian link across the site that was interrupted by the trash enclosure Several alternatives have been discussed for re- routing the sidewalk. Ultimately, the restaurant owners have chosen a sidewalk connection that avoids the dumpster enclosure by extending directly across the parking lot from the front entrance area A parking space may be lost, but there opporrumnes to replace it are being explored While this solution is not ideal, it is mutually acceptable by the restaurant, developer and staff. BACKGROUND Apphcant Property Owner(s)• Location. Area in Acres: Building data: Comp Guide Plan Desig. Current Zoning. Related City Council Action: Charhe Rae, Inc. (Axel's Bonfire) Lot 3, Rosemount Crossing, Southwest comer of South Robert Trail (STH 3) and Cambrian Ave. 1 163 acres 6,500 sq. ft. Commercial C -4, General Commercial (PUD) Approved Preliminary Plat PUD Final Development Plan, Resolution 2004 130. PUD AMENDMENT This review concerns the 6,500 sq. ft restaurant included with the Rosemount Crossing commercial planned unit development The restaurant was the primary incentive to the City for approving the development with a number of concessions to architectural, parking and setback standards The PUD amendment process is warranted because the restaurant will have its own character that will visually set it apart from the other three buildings within Rosemount Crossing. SITE CONSIDERATIONS The building is located at the only vehicular entrance to the development. The PUD allowed a building setback of 10 feet to the Cambrian Avenue right -of -way Cambrian Avenue will be disconnected at the residential neighborhood to the north and will serve exclusively as the entrance in to the commercial area. The size of the restaurant will remain consistent with the 6,500 sq. ft. allowed under the PUD. However, the restaurant will appear to be a two -story building that will be in contrast with the one -story buildings that comprise Rosemount Crossing. The site plan has been revised slightly The building orientation has changed with the main entrance located at the southwest comer and the trash enclosure shifted from the southeast comer to the northwest corner. Previously, the main entrance was centered on the west elevation and the trash area was integrated within the building, with an overhead door at the southeast corner of the building The trash area is now an enclosure that is an addition to the building The enclosure is m a functionally reasonable location, given its linkage to the kitchen area located in the northwest comer of the building However, the new enclosure location blocks the intended sidewalk connection between the restaurant and the Cambrian Ave. entrance and the pedestrian crossing to the larger retail building. Staff is requiring that this hnk be reestabhshed in the site plan either by crossing m front of the trash enclosure or some other suitable alternative PARKING DISCUSSION Parking was an item of concern with the overall PUD. The concern was that restaurants have higher parkmg demands based upon the number of seats. At the time of the PUD review, the building size was known, but there was no restaurant committed at the time so the number of seats was unknown. The re- orientation of the building shifts the location of three of the parking stalls, but there is no loss of parking spaces 2 Number of Seats 200 Parking spaces Provided Required Shared via PUD 39 67 (1 space per 3 seats) 28 The PUD approved the restaurant site plan with 39 parking spaces. The parking limitations were discussed extensively during the preliminary plat /PUD final development plan review process The applicant, Steiner Development, had a parking study prepared by a consultant. The study based the parking requirement on 12 3 spaces required per 1,000 sq. ft. for a "high- turnover sit down restaurant. Then there was a 15° D adjustment (reduction) apphed collectively to the uses assuming there would be shared trips. The study projected peak demand to be 68 spaces during 11 am to 1 pm for both weekdays and Saturdays. Because the parking study was based upon building square footage rather than number of seats, the approval continues to be m conformance with the parking study, which is the basis for the PUD approval The information above illustrates the number of parking spaces required by ordinance, 67 based upon the 200 seats in the restaurant. This figure is similar to the parking demand projected by the parking study during lunch peak hours, 68. The overall PUD includes a ceihng of 12,500 sq. ft. for restaurants. If that number is exceeded, or another use mtroduced that raises the parking demand, approval of a PUD major amendment would be required BUILDING DISCUSSION The restaurant will differ from the other buildings in the PUD due to proposed materials and building design. The PUD approved materials consists pnmanly of brick with rock -faced block accents and E.I.F.I S stucco above the windows for the sign bands. Most of the windows feature earth tone awnings of green and burgundy. Therefore, the overall character is for brick with accents. In contrast, the restaurant is intended to follow a New Orleans Cajun theme. The building will appear to be two -story resulting from the building height of 22 ft and the double row of windows. It will include a tower feature accentuating the front entrance adding an additional 3 ft. of height The interior will actually be smgle -story with loft ceilings. The resulting appearance suggests a traditional mixed -use building with second story accessory apartments. For companson, the other buildings in Rosemount Crossing will be: Building Building Height Rudy's Red Eye Grill Restaurant 22 feet Multiple Tenant Retail (22,400 sq. ft.)18 feet ALDI Grocery 16 feet, 8 inches Starbucks Other (4,200 sq. ft.) 18 feet Parapet Height 22 feet 20 feet 19 ft. 4 in. 20 feet Accent 25 feet 24 feet 21 ft., 4 in. 25 feet The conclusion of the comparison is that the restaurant is not out of scale with any of the other buildings m the development. The materials will be prunanly stucco CA) with brick on the lower quarter of the building forming a base. The tower entrance will be entirely stucco. The stucco is intended to have a weathered or rustic look with accents of brick appearing through occasional "holes" m the stucco Wrought -iron railings provide accents for a few of the upper level windows and above the doors at the entrance and pano area. A large cornice forms the roof -line, and metal awnings supported by columns add further detail to the front entrance (southwest corner) and the southeast comer of the building. The southeast corner does not have functional doors. 3 The restaurant includes an outdoor seating area along the Highway 3 frontage as anticipated in the Rosemount Crossing PUD. The patio is semi circular m shape with landscaping encirchng the outer edge. There will not be any pedestrian movement to the patio except through the building. This is not allowed because of the hquor license. LANDSCAPING The landscaping has been somewhat re- arranged as a result of the building design and deletion of an entrance sign monument along Cambrian Ave. The numbers of plantings have not been reduced The plantings originally intended for the foreground of the monument sign have been shifted to the perimeter of the patio seating area. Foundation plantings originally clustered around the assumed front entrance m the PUD have been distnbuted along the north, west and south foundations, away from the southwest oriented entrance Staff is not concerned about the revisions to the landscaping plan. However, there are two issues. The first dates back to the PUD and a condition to increase landscaping along the parking lot edge closest to South Robert Trail There is a variance to parking lot setbacks, and increased massed shrubs was an expectation for blocking potential headlight glare, pnmarily from the drive- through, but also from vehicle maneuvering in the parking lot. The second issue concerns the dumpster enclosure interrupting the sidewalk connection. The pedestrian linkages are important to the PUD and are critical m the context of the shared parking that extends across the driveway aisles. The pedestrian route should either be stnped in front of the dumpster enclosure and the sidewalk continued to the edge of the driveway or another alternative must be found. SIGNS The PUD includes a sign plan that restricts wall signage to sign bands above the building entrances and windows The restaurant has no sign band but does include three wall signs The signs are logically placed on separate elevations of the building at a level aligning with the "second story" windows One would be located at the southeast comer, facing south. Another is centered on the east elevation facing South Robert Trail above the patio Lastly, one is located on the west elevation facmg into the parkmg lot above the dumpster enclosure There is no sign shown above the main entrance. One objective of the PUD amendment would acknowledge the sign locations and style, setting expectations if the building ever turns over in ownership or use. The PUD includes a ground or pylon sign along the South Robert Trail right -of -way near the southwest corner of the building CONCLUSION The PUD amendment will facilitate a unique building for a full- service restaurant. It will simulate a mixed use appearance along a commercial edge to a residential district. The objective of the amendment is to preserve elements of the previously approved PUD such as the sidewalk connections and landscaping. The PUD amendment will also provide a framework for the unique elements of the building and provide a regulatory context. RECOMMENDATION Adopt draft resolution. 4 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MAJOR AMENDMENT FOR ROSEMOUNT CROSSING WHEREAS, on October 28, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount approved the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Development Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions, and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Charlie Rae, Inc requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Major Amendment for a section of Rosemount Crossing legally described as: Lot 3, Rosemount Crossing, Dakota County, Minnesota WHEREAS, on May 24, 2005, the Planning Commission of the Rosemount reviewed the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Major Amendment for the Rosemount Crossing and held a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Major Amendment for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Planned Unit Development Major Amendment for Rosemount Crossing; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development Major Amendment for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Major Amendment for Rosemount Crossing, subject to: 1. Execution of an amendment to the PUD Agreement. 2. Conformance with applicable budding and fire codes. 3. Additional landscaping for parking lot screening is required at the edge of the parking lot adjacent to South Robert Trail within the parking lot setback as specified in Resolution 2004 -130. 4. The sidewalk link between the restaurant and the Cambrian Ave entrance sidewalk must be preserved, by extending from the building entrance perpendicular across the parking lot to the curbed island, then to the crossing at the restaurant entrance. Pavement details in the parking lot crossing area shall be consistent with material approved in the Rosemount Crossing PUD. 5. Conformance with the conditions of Resolution 2004 -130. ADOPTED this 21 day of June, 2005 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: William H. Droste, Mayor RESOLUTION 2005- Second by: 2 referred to as the "Declarant DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ROSEMOUNT CROSSING Rudy's Red Eye Grill Planned Unit Development Amendment THIS DECLARATION made this day of 2005, by (hereinafter WHEREAS. Declarant is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit 1, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter 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, Minnesota "City in connection with the approval of an application for a major amendment to the Rosemount Crossing planned unit development for a restaurant 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 planned unit development would not have been approved; and WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the 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. 2004 -130, Exhibit 2. b. City Resolution No. 2005- Exhibit 3 b. Rudy's Red Eye Grill Site Plan, Exhibit 4. c. Rudy's Red Eye Grill Elevations A -1, Exhibit 5. e. Rudy's Red Eye Grill Elevations A -2, Exhibit 6. CLL- 250829v1 RS215 -i 1 f. Landscape Plan sheet L -1, Exhibit 7. 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 A street -side building setback of 10 feet will be allowed from Cambrian Ave. right -of -way. b. A front -yard building setback of 25 feet will be allowed for the State Highway 3 right -of -way. c. Building wall signs shall be consistent in style, size and location as depicted on the attached elevations, Exhibits 5 and 6. d. e. The Declarant shall be responsible for maintenance and replacement of all site improvements including landscaping for the development on Lot 1, Rosemount Crossing as depicted on the Landscaping Plan and as additionally required ih Resolution 2004 -130, and Resolution 2005- 3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of these Declarations unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council of an amendment to the planned umt development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that permits such other development and use. 4. In connection with the approval of developers of the Subject Property, the following variances from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved: a. Section 6 14.E.4, Minimum Front Yard Setback. b. Section 8.1.H, Off-Street Parking Required, subject to the terms of Resolution 2004 -130. In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordmances. 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 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. CLL- 250829v1 RS215-4 DECLARANT By Its 2 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by the and the for and on behalf of a by and on behalf of said THIS INS I'KUMENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy Graven, Chartered (CLL) 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 CLL- 250829v1 RS215 -4 By Its 3 Notary Public Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2005 Public Hearing: 5B. Case 05- 22 -AMD Rudy's Redeye Grill (Rosemount Crossing) PUD Major Amendment. City Planner Pearson reviewed the staff report. The requested PUD Amendment concerns the proposed restaurant for the Rosemount Crossing commercial development on the northwest corner of County Road 42 and South Robert Trail The reason for the amendment is because the free standing budding will not share the same architectural character as the rest of the development PUD. However, it is still part of the PUD and is integral to the entire development with circulation and shared parking as was approved with the original PUD. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Zum had a concern about the appearance and location of the trash enclosure. Mr Pearson stated the trash enclosure would be made from the same material as the building per ordinance requirements. The design of the building places the enclosure extending beyond the kitchen as seen m the northern elevation Chairperson Messner questioned what the western elevation looked like. Mr. Pearson stated the enclosure facing from the western elevation shows gates between stucco walls and a red door. The gates are a heavy, cortex steel. Chairperson Messner questioned the crossing of the sidewalk and how it would be extended based on where the trash enclosure is located The plan stops the sidewalk at the trash enclosure Mr. Pearson stated one option would be to zigzag the sidewalk around the trash enclosure with paving and striping m front so you would have the pedestrian link Chairperson Messner asked if the location to the north is set or if can shift east or west. Mr Pearson stated it is set and it should remain perpendicular to the sidewalk. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. David Harchanko, Truman Howell Associates, stated he was the architect on this project representing the Axel's group. He added that in addition to signage on the building they intend to use the pylon sign They are more interested m a freestanding monument marker versus all the signage on the building The monument will be located between Starbucks and the southeast corner. Phillip Baum, Steiner Development, stated he was a partner in the project and hoped Steiner met the goals and criteria set forth m the beginning of the project. Steiner is excited about the addition of the restaurant to the center Chairperson Messner commended Sterner for moving forward and for bringing a quality restaurant to Rosemount. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Heating. Second by Zurn Ayes. Zum, Messner and Humphrey. Nayes. None Motion carried. Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. Commissioner Humphrey asked if the Commission had to approve the pylon sign. Mr. Pearson stated all freestanding signs were approved with the original PUD. MOTION by Zurn to recommend approval of the PUD Major Amendment for Rudy's Redeye Grill subject to: 1 Execution of an amendment to the PUD Agreement. 2. Conformance with apphcable building and fire codes. 3. Additional landscaping for parkmg lot screening is required at the edge of the parking lot adjacent to South Robert Trail within the parking lot setback as specified in Resolution 2004 -130 4. The sidewalk link between the restaurant and the Cambrian Ave. entrance must be maintained by either going around the dumpster enclosure or another alternative found subject to approval by City Staff. 5. Conformance with the conditions of Resolution 2004 -130. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Zurn, Messner and Humphrey and Powell Nayes: None. Motion approved. Mr. Pearson stated this item will be on the June 21, 2005 City Council Agenda at which point there will also be a pubhc hearing for the hquor hcense request. MN= n n *11 E. mi w inn i Bus maiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiirem 11 PROPOS D BUILDING 6,500 SF FEE-960.0 SITE PLAN I' 20' -0' 0 c RUDY'S REDEYE GRILL ROSEM UNT IAN a ss' C ic rz E 'affil 214 MILE r� +4 L w_ RUDY'S REDEYE GRILL ROSEMOUNT MN I z RUDY'S REDEYE GRILL ROSEUOUNT WJ CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004 130 A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2004 -124 AND APPROVING A REVISED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PREMILLVARY PLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FINAL PLAN FOR ROSEMOUNT CROSSING WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Steiner Development, Incorporated, requesting a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Development for the Rosemount Crossing, legally described as Marian Terrace excepting therefrom that part now platted as Marian Terrace Replat and also excepting therefrom that part now platted as Marian Terrace Replat 2 Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County of Dakota and State of Minnesota Together that portion of public lands vacated in Document No. 11942 filed June 2L, 1955, which accrue to subject premises WHEREAS, on June 21, 2004, the applicant submitted a revised site plan that responded to some staff identified concerns, where upon the Planning Comimssion of the City of Rosemount continued the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to July 14, 2004 to provide sufficient time to review the revised plans; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2004 the applicant submitted another revised PUD Concept Plan for the project renamed Rosemount Crossing addressing additional concerns. WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised concept PUD for Rosemount Crossing and received comments at the continued public hearing, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions, and WHEREAS, August 2 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossine. WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Rosemount approved the Plan Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Crossings, subject to conditions, and WHEREAS, on September 14. 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to 2 rSOLUTION 2004 -130 recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2004, the Council of the City of Rosemount approved the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing in Resolution 2004 -124, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2005 the City Council rescinded Resolution 2004 -124 and approved a revised resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to: 1. Execution and recording of a PUD agreement to assure the property is developed and used in accordance with the plan documents received on September 23, 2004 and this resolution To the extent of any inconsistencies between this resolution and the approved declaration of covenants and restnctions, the former will control. 2 The development shall include a 6,500 sq ft restaurant with the first phase of construction unless otherwise specified in the PUD agreement. 3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage, erosion control, grading. street, storm water and utility design including the following specifics: a A maintenance agreement shall be required for the underground storm water storage system prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. b. The sanitary sewer shall be reconfigured to utilize the two stubs already present on -site. c. The plans shall conform to all City of Rosemount Engineering Standards and guidelines and address comments specifically listed in the following report d Dedication of nght -of -way for the street connection between Camero Lane and Cambnan Avenue and provision of funds necessary to construct the street to City standards e. Obtain a tilnDot access permit. 4 Reconstruction of Cambnan Avenue for exclusive access into the Rosemount Crossing site and provision of landscaping for screening adjacent residential uses. In consideration that site access is located within the public nght -of -way, the City may at its own discretion take over the dnveway within Cambrian Avenue for public access purposes. 5 Plan revisions to eliminate setback and sight- tnangle encroachments of the monument signs along Highway 3 at the corners with County Road 42 and Cambrian Avenue, and setback encroachments along Highway 3 and County Road 42 for ground signs 6 Ground signs shall have monument bases consistent in width with the sign face, and consistent with building architecture and matenals Three ground signs are '.ESOLUTION 2004 -130 freestanding signs may not exceed the height width and sign tenant into and logo than the plan dated 9 and received by the City on 9/23/04 7. Implementation of the revised landscaping plan received on September 23, 2004, and further refinements to the plan a Pro ide additional plantings within the normal parking setback area along Highway 3 to immediately and effectively screen the drive through from south -bound traffic year round achieving 90% opacity to a height of three feet. b. Reduce the overall percentage of Ash trees to no more than 25% (currently more than 50% of all boulevard trees). c To coordinate with grading revisions associated with the emergency storm water overflow. 8. All landscape areas including parking lot islands shall be irrigated. 9. Pedestrian or service doors entering into the drive- through lane shall not be permitted in the 4,200 sq ft restaurant, or delivery times will be restricted to periods exclusive of drive through service availability. 10. Provision of a sign plan for consistency of design of wall signs. The sign plan should designate a sign band for sign placement on each building, the type of signs acceptable on the site, and the sign area for each tenant space This sign plan or covenant serve as the sign regulations for the entire property and will supersede Ctty adopted ordinance regulations. 11. The grocery building shall not have additional tenant signs located outside of the E.LF.S. sign locations near the entrances and windows. A PUD amendment shall be required if the building is proposed to be altered for multiple uses or tenants. 12 Construction of the sidewalk/trail connection to Camfield Park consistent with specifications of the Parks and Recreation Director. 13. Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission including provision of additional right -of -way for County Road 42 14. Sidewalks intersecting with driveways shall emphasize the pedestrian crossings with pavement detail including either textured concrete or brick pavers 15 Incorporation of Recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission for Park Dedication in the amount of 564,710 based upon current fee resolution. 16. The four light fixtures lining, the outer edge of the retail building service area shall be reduced to 20 maximum heights Parking lot lighting and wall fighting must be complementary to the light standards along Hwy 3 Light fixtures A -3, all D and E fixtures shall be "Acorn" style fixtures as installed along highway 3 17 The light fixture "E -26" shall be moved out of the pedestrian ramp curb cut adjacent to the 22,400 sq ft retail building 18 Building awnings shall be consistent with all applicable standards recommended in the Draft Downtown Design Guidelines (Revised September 2004) 19. The applicant shall obtain necessary permits for work within nght -of -way from NtnDOT and Dakota County and necessary permits from the State such as the NPDES permit 20 The applicant shall install masonry trash enclosures consistent with the materials of the principal structures 21. The applicant shall provide the three public plaza spaces shown on the final development plan accessory to the freestanding restaurant, south of the coffee 3 shop, and on the southern end of the multiple tenant retail space. 22. Payment of all required development fees including_ park dedication fees 23. Should the property experience a parking shortage which creates negative off -site impacts, as determined by the City, the City may require a parking study predicting the impact of proposed future changes in use The parking study will use typical industry standards or if found acceptable, information generated specifically for the end user. The parking study will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuing a building permit or certificate of occupancy for the proposed change in use. 24. The applicant must pay for no parking signs in adjoining residential neighborhoods if they experience on- street parking associated with the project. 25. The tenant mix is restricted to that portrayed in the October 1, 2004 parking study referencing the following use locations and building sizes submitted by the applicant. The indicated square footages and distribution of the uses are considered to be maximum square footages not to be exceeded for the entire project The property is approved for a 15,000 sq ft ALDI grocery store, a 1,800 sq ft coffee shop, a 1.200 sq f bagel shop, a 6,500 sq ft full- service freestanding restaurant. and a 3.000 sq ft casual dining/high turnover sit -down restaurant The Lot 2 building may have a 2,400 sq ft bagel restaurant if the 3,000 sq ft casual dining/high turnover sit -down restaurant space is reduced to a maximum of 1,800 sq ft. The total square feet of the restaurant space in the project my not exceed 12,500 square feet without a major PLTD amendment The introduction of non- retail uses aside from those listed above will not be allowed without a parking study using typical industry standards, showing that the site has adequate parking for the new and existing uses, subject to city review and approval. ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Jentink,,City Clerk RE:.__UTION 2004 -130 William H. Droste, Mayor Shoe- Corrigan Riley Motion by Second by: Voted in favor: DeBettignies, Shoe- Corrigan, Droste, Riley, Strayton. Voted against None. Member absent None. 4 C do MS N89 29'34 "E 217 43 o nts r AP ma (VACATED) S Y LINE OF MA IAN TERRACE REPLAT Ln c• C 0:57 5 93 A- 22 7 6. E LOT 3 1163'1CR S 5419 7) Jjr i IL CP d ZoA VLL, P E 1ttr N 0 .I,I rE ^ACE co 0 82 1 S LINE OF MARIAN TERRACE REPLAY 2N0 AODITCN_ OT .800 ACRES r 1.948 ACRES n I EXCEPTION 1_ to e c)„, Z N EX'seivc IV BUILDING 0 V Fo ww EXCEPTION £Qs1 NG BUILDING Ewsnwc GUILDIIIG S75. 4 V PUBLIC LI o STR TOPM E.�3A n. ROSE_AOUNT 5 00 40'37" W 33 33 2'02 EXCEP1 S 23 35'38" W 1W BENSHOOF ASSOCIATES, INC. Exhibit 13 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO HOPKINS, MN 55343 (952) 238 -1667 FAX (952) 238 -1671 October 1, 2004 Refer to File: 04 -71 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Johnson, Steiner Development, Inc FROM James A. Benshoof and David C. May RE: Review of Parking Demand/Supply Relationships for Rosemount Crossing Development This memorandum is to present the results of the study we have completed concerning parking at the proposed Rosemount Crossing development. The purpose of this study has been to address the following questions. What are the parking demand requirements for each of the uses occupying the development? Is the amount of parkmg provided by the development suitable to fulfill the demand requirements? As we understand, the Rosemount Crossing development consists of four buildings and the following uses Southwest corner (15,000 square foot building) ALDI grocery store Southeast corner (4,200 square foot building) Starbucics coffee store with drive through (1,800 square feet) Bagel shop Small retail store (to be determined) Northeast corner (6,500 square foot building) Full- service restaurant (high tumover, e.g Perkins' or Axel's/Bonfire) Northwest corner (22,400 square foot building) "Quick casual" restaurant (high- turnover) (3,000 square feet) Fantastic Sam's hair salon Mr. Todd Johnson Nail salon Ebay auction assistance store Remainder to be determined -2- October 1, 2004 Based on a review of the current development plans, a total of 256 spaces are supplied for all four buildings We have projected parking demand for the proposed development using parking generation information previously collected by Benshoof Associates for other similar land uses, and from the following two sources: Shared Parking Urban Land Institute, 1983. Parking, Robert A. Weant and Herbert S. Levinson, ENO Foundation for Transportation, 1990 A 15% reduction factor has been applied to all land uses to account for walking and multi purpose trips. Parking demands vary throughout the day for different land uses. To account for this variation, the net parking demand was determined for each land use during five periods throughout the day. The net parking demand for each land use was then added together to obtain the gross total parking demand for each period throughout the day The gross total parkmg demand was then was multiplied by a factor or 1 1 to obtain the total number of parking spaces needed for each period of the day The 1.1 factor is to account for items that limit the efficiency of a parking facility, such as snow storage, motorists taking two spaces, and the time lag between when a motorist leaves a space and another motorist arrives to occupy the space. Drivers perceive that parking lots are "full" when approximately 90% of the spaces are occupied. Table 1 presents the demand /supply relationships for each land use in the Rosemount Crossing dev elopment during a typical weekday, and Table 2 presents the same relationships during a typical Saturday. As indicated in the two tables, the proposed development provides sufficient number of parking spaces to meet the total expected parking demand during all time periods on a typical weekday and a typical Saturday Mr. Todd Johnson R7-111-1 W i 21 vZ c� C c o J O D ti E- a_0 to .r o a �zro n=+' c v v o- o C 3 m C ET a 1 o Q m N g O D J N N LL v a<< F N C S O N L n 5 -r-7 o n c v 4 N z a To- ry v o j N_ J 7 O 4 m at a 3 a to t 0 O dm y --n E L p o o 2 Y L j O_ a <a z ro n n 0 0 o -0 EFT o m a ET N N "t o fT2 -N a F O N L D- m w o c) 0 P c w 0 O 0 0 00.00000 0 IQ l O a 0 C c O C O Ln .L N N 0 c m 0 c o o 0 0 0 o e -a 0a O 0 0 O L^ a o c •.e. O bi w 0 0 0 o e e V -3- October 1, 2004 z c 0 o c o e a o mm 0 O a o a Ln A cv 090/0 a a a o 00010 N04 0 0 c J O 01 0 01 3 3 z BiLldin ALDI Gtocery Store Starbuds Bagel shop Small retail strop I llgh'turnoyee 9t dovth rp. ,limn Land:Use 15 fC0 1,800 sf I,lLO sF 12�st 6 500 sf 3,000 1 19 400 1 Mr Todd Johnson a 01 m 350 m» 2+ z Oul 0 0 3 h tri n 3 Ct October 1, 2004