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