HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. AdditionsDATE: October 5, 2004
TO: Rosemount City Council
FROM: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
RE: Council Agenda 10/5/04 Changes
1. Item I Lb. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment by Marlon Danner
Mr. Danner sent a letter to withdraw his request for this amendment. Please remove this item
from the agenda.
2. Item 11.c. Rosemount Crossing Final PUD Development Plan & Preliminary Plat
City Attorney LeFevere revised the resolution for this item. City Planner Rick Pearson has
included a memo with additional information showing the word changes and regarding the
Parking Study which is attached.
S i r
OCT -04 -2004 09:12 DANNER INC
651 450 9076 P.01i01
LT
+��'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor, City Council members
FROM: Rick Pearson, City Planner
DATE: October 5, 2004
RE: New Business Item 11c. Additional information concerning Rosemount Crossing
Final PUD & Preliminary Plat
• Revised Resolution
• Steiner Development Inc. Comments, Corrections and Clarifications to Staff Report and
draft resolution.
• October 4, 2004 Benshoof & Associates Inc. Responses to questions regarding Parking
Study.
• October 1, 2004 Benshoof & Associates Parking Study.
The resolution for Rosemount Crossing has been revised as a result of discussions with the City
Attorney. Items #1, 2, 7b and 22 have been edited for clarity or typos. In addition, references to
the latest plans have been updated to September 23, 2004.
Todd Johnson representing the Developer is requesting modifications to the resolution.
Specifically, new or added language requested:
18. (New language) "Building Awnings will be of a natural color tone."
Staffs intent is to follow the Downtown Redevelopment Committee's
recommendation to avoid florescent, excessively bright or offensive colors.
22. (Added language) "...which shall be assessed to the properties on a pro -rata
basis."
Staffs concern is that this is a Council policy decision.
23. Please delete this condition.
Staffs concern is that turn -over of uses on the site might increase the parking
demand with no ability to provide additional parking. The only other opton is
to review new parking demands related to new uses.
25. (Added language) "for purposes of determining required parking, Rosemount
Crossing will be considered a shopping center."
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PREMILINARY 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 nd 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 21,
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 Commission 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" d , 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendation, the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan
for Rosemount Crossing.
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
recommend that the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit
Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing, subject to conditions; and
RESOULTION 2004-
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2004, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves
the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Rosemount Crossing.
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.
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 right -of -way for the street connection between Camero Lane
and Cambrian Avenue and provision of funds necessary to construct the street
to City standards.
e. Obtain a MnDot access permit.
4. Reconstruction of Cambrian 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 right -of -way, the City
may at its own discretion take over the driveway within Cambrian Avenue for
public access purposes.
5. Plan revisions to eliminate setback and sight - triangle 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 materials. Three ground signs are
permitted within the entire PUD consistent with the approved site plan. All
freestanding signs may not exceed the height width and sign tenant into and logo
than the plan dated 9/2/04 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. Provide 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).
2.
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 City adopted ordinance regulations.
11. The grocery building shall not have additional tenant signs located outside of the
E.I.F.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 $64,710 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 lighting 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 in muted tones with up to two colors.
19. The applicant shall obtain necessary permits for work within right -of -way from
MnDOT 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
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 restrict the type of uses within
the project to obtain a lower demand for on -site parking. The restriction will be
based upon typical industry standards or, if found acceptable, information
generated specifically for the end user.
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
3.
RESOULTION 2004-
submitted by the applicant. The introduction of non - retail uses aside from an
15,000 sq ft ALDI grocery store, a 1,800 sq ft Starbucks, a 1,200 sq ft bagel shop,
a 6,500 sq ft full- service freestanding restaurant, and a 3,000 sq. ft casual
dining/high turnover site -down restaurant will not be allowed without a parking
study showing that the site has adequate parking, to be reviewed and approved by
the City.
ADOPTED this Fifth day of October, 2004 by the City Council of the City of
Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
4.
••- • • • •
10/05/04 07:36 FAX 9524737058 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. 002
Steiner
Development, Inc.
3610 County Road 101
Wayzata, MN 55391
(952)473 -5650 Pax (952)473.7058
October 4, 2004
Ms. Kim Lindquist
Mr. Rick Pearson
Community Development
City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Comments, Corrections, and Clarification to Staff Report and Draft
Resolution Rosemount Crossing Final PUD
Dear Ms. Lindquist;
Steiner Development has reviewed the staff report issued for the October 5, 2004 city council
meeting regarding the final PUD development plan and preliminary plat for Rosemount
Crossing. Several items need comment, correction or clarification for the public record.
Please include this letter in the minutes of the city council meeting.
The following are listed in order of the item heading:
BACKGROUND.
The Applicant and Property Owner is Steiner Development, Inc.
The lot areas have been updated to reflect 2.002 acres for lot 1 and .337 acres for the Co Rd
42 right of way,
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING.
A reference is made to the restaurant's 200 seats "requiring additional parking spaces beyond
the number allotted by ordinance ". SDI's position is that the project is a shopping center
and exceeds the required parking, and further that our parking study demonstrates that the
parking planned exceeds expected demand.
DRAINAGE, GRADING, & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
Our revised plans reflect all of the feedback from engineering staff, and engineering staff has
expressed acceptance of the revisions.
10/05/04 07:36 FAX 95 24737058 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. 16003
Ms. Lindquist
Mr. Pearson
Page 2
October 4, 2004
PARKING.
Benshoof & Associates has conducted a parking study based on published averages for
shopping centers similar to Rosemount Crossing. Staff's review raised concerns, and
Benshoof & Associates has responded to staff s concerns in the attached letter.
In the unlikely event that there is a parking problem on the neighborhood streets, we accept
the responsibility for installing "no parking" signage on immediately adjacent city streets in
the event of spillover parking. We object to the city's regulation of tenants in the project
beyond the dictates of the zoning code. The final PUD plan shows eight more parking stalls
than the concept plan.
SDI requests that council review the parking analysis, ask questions of the traffic engineer in
the city council meeting, and put the issue to rest with the condition of SDI installing signs
on the immediately adjacent streets in the event of spillover parking, and formally
recognizing Rosemount Crossing as a shopping center.
CAMBRIAN AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS.
SDI has maintained that the Cambrian — Camero connector loop road was to be constructed
and paid for by others. In light of the condition of approval requiring payment of the loop
road construction, SDI is requesting that we restructure other costs of the project to make this
feasible. SDI requests that council direct staff to assess the fees (not to include construction
costs) listed in item #19 of the subdivision agreement, totaling $134,507.00. If the fees can
be assessed, SDI will be able to construct the loop road.
SIDEWALKS & TRAILS.
As discussed with staff, the sidewalk accents will be exposed aggregate concrete. The
roadway crossings will be pattern- stamped bituminous.
BUILDING ARCHITECTURE.
Staff indicates a concern that the building awnings may be "excessively bright ", and wants to
limit the color choices to two — muted tone colors. Please do not limit the ability of the
architect to select the proper colors for the awnings. A condition of "no artificial colors" or
other description limiting offensive colors is acceptable.
LOADING DOCK AND DUMPSTER AREAS.
The screen wall for the truck loading area at the Northwest corner of the grocery building is
65' x 10', which is sufficient to fully screen the trucks in the loading area. The dock is
recessed into the ground and is 2'6" low at the end of the screen wall, effectively screening a
12' high truck.
le o e •
10/05/04 07:37 FAX 952 4737058 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. 4004
Ms. Lindquist
Mr. Pearson
Page 3
October 4, 2004
SIGN PLAN.
The three pylon signs are to be divided as follows: Lot 1 along Co Rd 42: 60% ALDI's as
shown on the elevations.: Lot 2 along STH 3': Multiple sign bands for tenants. Lot 3 along
STH 3: Dedicated to the full service restaurant only.
LANDSCAPING.
All of staff s suggestions have been implemented and are shown on the current plans.
LIGHTING PLAN.
SDI has incorporated utilitarian lighting in the large areas, and decorative light standards on
the entrance and the center pedestrian corridor. This plan incorporates a decorative lighting
element that satisfies the condition that the Rosemount Crossing lighting be complimentary
to the lighting standards on STH 3.
RESOLUTION, ITEM #6
Clarification: The signs will be for use of ALDI and other tenants of Rosemount Crossing.
RESOLUTION, ITEM #14
Clarification: The roadway crossings will be pattern - stamped bituminous.
RESOLUTION, ITEM #18
This requirement limits the design flexibility of the architect and retailers. SDI does not
want, nor will SDI allow, inappropriate colors to be used for the awnings. Please amend to
read `Building awnings will be of a natural color tone ".
RESOLUTION, ITEM #22
If SDI and City Council are in agreement regarding the payment of the "loop road"
construction in exchange for payment of development fees through assessment, please add
the following to the resolution: "which shall be assessed to the properties on a pro -rata
basis ".
RESOLUTION, ITEM #23
Our traffic engineer has issued a report finding the parking adequate at Rosemount Crossing.
SDI has also agreed to install "no parking" signs if necessary. Please delete this condition.
10/05/04 07:37 FAX 9524737 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. IA005
Ms. Lindquist
Mr. Pearson
Page 4
October 4, 2004
RESOLUTION, ITEM #25
Per the previous comment, please delete this condition and replace with "for purposes of
determining required parking, Rosemount Crossing will be considered a shopping center ".
Please consider this letter in the spirit of teamwork to arrive at an agreement that all parties
can adopt. SDI intends to build a first class shopping environment for the city of Rosemount
on this important corner.
Sincerely,
STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC.
�v
T A. Johnson
Vice President — Development
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (952) 238 -1667 / FAX (952) 238 -1671
October 4, 2004 Refer to File 04 -71
Ms. Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
2875 145` Street W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Responses to Questions Regarding the Adequacy of Parking for Rosemount
Crossing Development
Dear Kim:
As you are aware, we submitted a memorandum on October 1, 2004 to Todd Johnson of
Steiner Development regarding a review of parking adequacy for the proposed
Rosemount Crossing development. Later that day, we received from Mr. Johnson a copy
of pages 4, 5, and 6 from a City staff report concerning the development. This report
raised four questions regarding our memorandum of October 1. The purpose of this letter
is to provide a response to each of the four questions raised in the staff report. The
comments made by City staff are cited below, with our replies following each comment.
1. The study varies in its use of data. Sometimes the Urban Land Institute
numbers are used, sometimes the ENO Foundation for Transportation
study is used, and sometimes the information is from that gathered by the
consultant. Staff questions the variation and would have preferred that
the Urban Land Institute information be used consistently as that is the
generally accepted source for parking information.
Our approach is to use all pertinent sources of information to establish the
most valid results. We find that it is important, especially where parking
analyses are concerned, because no one source (including the Urban Land
Institute) is complete. By considering and using all available resources, it
allows us to present results that have the highest possible degree of
completeness and validity.
Ms. Kim Lindquist -2- October 4, 2004
2. Similarly, staff has no frame of reference for assessing whether the data
collected by the consultant is consistent in location and size of that
proposed for this project. Typically, information in a parking study would
use accepted standards and rates. It is unclear how Mr. Benshoof's
information compares to this "industry standard".
The parking analysis approach we applied for the Rosemount Crossing
development has been accepted by multiple cities in prior projects. We
have completed similar parking projects for the Cities of Hopkins and
Rochester using this approach. In addition, we completed a project in
Lilydale for a private client, and our findings were accepted by the City.
3. The restaurant parking is based upon gross square footage of the building
rather than seats. The city's current ordinance regulates parking on
number of seats and it would have been preferable to have a similar
computation. Staff believes number of seats is a better indicator of trips
and parking demand.
Our values for restaurant parking come from Parking (Robert A. Weant
and Herbert S. Levinson, published by the Eno Foundation for
Transportation, 1990). Weant and Levinson cite a suggested parking
space value of 12.3 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross building floor
area in a suburban setting (p.43). The Urban Land Institute publication
Shared Parking (1983) only provides a range of values for parking demand
(between 7.2 and 25.8 spaces per 1000 square feet, p.19). Nevertheless,
gross building floor area is the unit used in both publications.
4. The study allows for a 15% adjustment in recognition that some trips to
the site will be shared trips, taking up only one parking space. The
adjustment also takes into consideration that some trips to the site will be
pedestrians rather than by vehicle. Chuck Richart of WSB indicated that
the 15% adjustment would seem high given the suburban location of the
property. He recognizes that there will be shared trips to the various
entities at the Center, however, believes there will be less pedestrian trips
than in an urban setting. He would reduce the adjustment factor.
For our study in Lilydale, the proposed development was located in a
suburban area, immediately adjacent to residential areas. We used a factor
of 15 % to account for multi -use trips and non - vehicle trips (i.e.,
pedestrians and bicycles). The Metropolitan Council, in a study entitled
Trip Generation Data for Multi -Use Developments (December 1984),
examined the ratio of trips generated by multi -use developments as
compared to overall trips on the surrounding roadway networks. Two of
the study locations featured retail centers in suburban areas (the Ridgedale
area in Minnetonka, and the Earle Brown Center in Brooklyn Center).
Ms. Kim Lindquist -3- October 4, 2004
The factors for multi - purpose trips were determined to be 15% and 12%
for the Minnetonka and Brooklyn Center locations, respectively.
Our adjustment of 15% for the proposed Rosemount Crossing
development is reasonable and consistent with previously published
studies. In addition, where the Metropolitan Council study only accounts
for multi - purpose vehicle trips, our factor also takes pedestrian and bicycle
trips into account.
We trust that the information provided in this letter will satisfactorily answer your
questions regarding our memorandum of October 1. Based on this further review, we
remain highly confident that the proposed development plan provides sufficient parking
spaces to meet the expected parking demand. Please feel free to contact either David
May or myself if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
James A. Benshoof
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
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 parking 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)
• Starbucks 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- turnover, 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 -2- October 1, 2004
• Nail salon
• Ebay auction assistance store
• Remainder to be determined
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.
Parkin , 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 parking 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 development 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 -3- October 1, 2004
w :� cn can m
3 °' a o ` z _,
-a9
C) 3 a
(�
- n 3 U N Q, C N
2S °F' m g n s
S
S 7..
d � nn $
m
T
a o m a m
°�-�.
0i of °, a
�
lu
o
N 0 �'c
a b 3
rx T�
o a it & - a o n
a 3 05 3
3 3 E- m m
=- m:c <
a m o Q. of
ImI m
0
0
-o
a
�s
d
N W
V
N W
V
—,D
3
ao
d 14 0 v
m�
a
1 6R s
o
0 0 0
0
3 3
CL
A .o °°
F+ F+ N
u
un
a
o.�i
?�
3
G1
'p
0O
g
%o v to
o 0
co
0
3 3
o
o N
p .0 0mv
o
0
o s
w
y
w
NN
A4p,
LM W
�.
UI d
33 K..
Ah
VI
0 R0000
tm
V
a s`
2
!n
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
3
d. s m
m
n 0 0
°Y�
A
IV
N t0 �.
N
n
-,
E
000O.0OQ
-1
� �
En
y
7C
m
j
o
b
:0 C m
p. <.
to
^
:�.
v `�
_
Ln
3 asp
�o
:o
,dog000a
0
0 0
0
0 3°0
�v
33
0 CD.
N W
V
N W
V
—,D
3
ao
,m
3 z
m
N
0 .
OD
A .o °°
F+ F+ N
u
un
of o
oovv0
z`
33 m
o N
p .0 0mv
LO _!
Ln
v� m
T
W
NN
A4p,
LM W
�.
UI d
33 K..
1
"o
01
�c
o
�r a�
S 3
a
O �
_ 70
L
oa
0 0
O
3
N 0�
�79
01 m
w 0p'
a
gat
Mr. Todd Johnson -4- October 1, 2004
oo
v� to
P CL fD
ti �2
e�
c`
a r�iv a��e
N
I ao .
to
E L
(�r- .K r in
L G d
{Q
m
m m
c 2i
Z5 P C)47 4;) 4Z'.S N T
10
o a�g O C�
O C p
St 0
y 0
un M N H.M
AfliNdoato
.3
M
m o ON Ch 'moo W"v
ro d n
4 "
u N A
C o0O
a aaa�a9z
06 a
%D
oo l hi Ij
pi
ppyy H
CJ "
0 w {q t++ V V
I V A
tD -P::01 11 N
' 0
(� v D
September 28, 2004
Rosemount Mayor and City Council Meetings Agenda
Issues regarding conditions of approval:
1. Payment of loop road expense is a condition of approval. SDI considers this an improper
extraction; even so, the land has been dedicated. To pay for off site improvements that are
not a result of, or benefit to our development is unacceptable. Estimated cost $80,000.
2. Timing of the draft/final PUD agreement review. Staff has stated they want to deliver
draft after council due to possible changes by city council action. Staff gave some indication
they would get us a PUD draft sooner, but fell short of a commitment.
3. Condition for herringbone brick or stamped concrete for sidewalk detail. We have
specified exposed aggregate on the plans.
4. The restaurant construction condition: Our position is that the site is dedicated to a full
service sit down restaurant, any timing constraints hurt all parties.
5. The residential neighbors on the southwest corner recently called the city and want a
fence. This runs counter to the recent zoning code change to specifically remove fencing as
an option for screening, fencing is only available at staff and council discretion.
6. Parking. The site has parking exceeding code requirements. Staff requests justification
for parking for one building, where the entire development functions utilizing cross parking.
Staff may review the parking study and waive this condition prior to council
7. Hedge along Hwy 3. Staff originally wanted a 3' hedge to screen headlights going to the
Starbucks drive through window. We added this to the landscape plan, now staff wants a 3'
high, double row hedge the entire length of the Hwy 3 frontage. This would be an unsightly
mental barrier to the site, which is supposed to be inviting to the public.
Estimated costs of amenities and requirements SDI has agreed to:
1. R.O.W land dedication: $197,588 @ $7.00 /ft
2. Cambrian Ave separation from neighborhood: $8,000
3. Cambrian Ave. third lane addition: $30,000
4. Sidewalk inlays - $12,000 (going to stamped concrete from exposed aggregate is
another $12,000)
5. Decorative Lighting: $7,200
6. Pond & Water fountain: $20,000
7. Comer Monument: $10,000
8. Increased Landscaping above code: $20,000
9. Emergency water overflow: $10,000
Total: $326,788
10. Stormtech Underground Stormponding: $350,000 (necessary in part due to site
constraints from handling storm runoff from 4 residential acres)
Total: $676,788