HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Request by KJ Walk, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Meeting: June 23, 2020
Tentative City Council Meeting: July 21, 2020
AGENDA ITEMS: 20-30-PUD; 20-35-SP; 20-36-RZ; 20-37-
CP; Request by KJ Walk, Inc. for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, Planned Unit Development
Master Development and Final Site and
Building Plan, and Preliminary and Final
Plat Approval (Simple Plat) associated
with the Rosewood Commons hotel,
senior living mixed use, and memory care
development.
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director; Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner;
Anthony Nemcek, Planner
AGENDA NO. 5.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map; Land Use
Amendment Map; Rezoning Map;
Preliminary Site Development Plans:
Cover Sheet, Preliminary Plat, Grading
and Erosion Control, Utilities, Hotel and
Apartment Site (Revised 6/5), Memory
Care Site, Landscape Plan (Revised ;
Architectural Plans – Senior Living Mixed
Use (9); Architectural Plans – Hotel (5);
Architectural Plans – Memory Care (2);
Lighting Plan; Building Cross Section
View; Rosewood Center Overall Concept;
Traffic Study, City Engineer Review
Memo (with WSB Storm Water Memo);
Building Official Review; Public Works
Review; Plat Commission Review; Public
Comment Letters (2)
APPROVED BY: KL
RECOMMENDED ACTION (APPROVALS):
1) Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Comprehensive Guide Plan
amendment to reguide 5.5 acres of land west of Business Parkway from CC –
Community Commercial to HDR – High Density Residential, subject to the following:
a. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
2) Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Zoning Map Amendment to
rezone 5.5 acres of land west of Business Parkway from C4 – General Commercial
to HDR – High Density Residential and to retain the C4 – General Commercial
zoning designation on 2.4 acres of land east of Business Parkway and south of 149th
Street, subject to the following condition:
a. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding a portion of the site
from CC to HDR.
3) Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
2
Master Development Plan with rezoning to HDR-PUD and C4-PUD for four senior
apartment buildings, two senior apartment buildings with ground floor retail, and a
79-unit hotel (without a memory care facility east of Business Parkway), subject to
the following conditions:
a. Execution of a PUD Agreement
b. A deviation from City Code Sections 11-4-14 (F.10.a.) and 11-4-9 (F.8.a) to
allow a maximum building height of 40 feet for the Hotel and 54 feet for the
Senior Apartments.
c. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-14 (G.3) to allow the exterior
surfaces of the hotel to be constructed with 25% brick or natural stone.
d. Establishment of a private association that assumes responsibility for
maintenance of all common areas, including private roadways, shared
driveways, storm water retention ponds, and landscaping.
e. The PUD allows shared parking provided the overall number of parking stalls
available meets or exceeds the sum of the minimum stalls required for each
separate use.
f. No more than 60% of all exterior elevations for the senior apartment may be
lap or shake siding.
g. The landscape plan shall be revised to meet the minimum number of trees
and foundation plantings required in Section 11-6-3 of the zoning ordinance.
h. All development plans shall be updated to reflect the revised parking and
driveway design for the hotel and senior apartment area.
i. Incorporation of recommendations from the City Engineer in a review
memorandum dated June 23, 2020 relative to drainage, grading, easements,
utilities, storm water management, and other subjects covered in the review.
j. Payment of all required area and connection charges consistent with the
Engineering memo.
k. Incorporation of recommendations from the Building Official/Fire Chief in a
review memorandum dated June 23, 2020.
l. A landscaping security of $250 per tree times 110% shall be provided until all
the vegetation is installed and a one-year warranty period has expired.
4) Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Planned Unit Development Final
Development Plan and Site Plan Review for four senior apartment buildings, two
senior apartment buildings with ground floor retail, and a 79-unit hotel and without a
memory care facility east of Business Parkway, subject to the following conditions:
a. Compliance with all conditions associated with the PUD Master Development
for Rosewood Commons.
5) Motion to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood
Commons, subject to the following conditions:
a. Incorporation of recommendations from the City Engineer in a review
memorandum dated June 23, 2020 relative to drainage, grading, easements,
utilities, storm water management, and other subjects covered in the review.
b. All easements as requested by city shall be documented on the final plat.
RECOMMENDED ACTION (DENIALS):
6) Motion to recommend the City Council deny a Comprehensive Guide Plan
amendment to reguide 2.4 acres east of Business Parkway and south of 149th
Street from CC – Community Commercial to HDR – High Density Residential.
7) Motion to recommend the City Council deny a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone
3
2.4 acres of land east of Business Parkway from C4 – General Commercial to HDR
– High Density Residential.
8) Motion to recommend the City Council deny a Planned Unit Development Master
Development Plan with rezoning to HDR-PUD for a 32-unit memory care facility in
the northeast quadrant of 150th Street West and Business Parkway (Lot 1, Block 2 of
the Rosewood Commons preliminary plat).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1) Motion to continue the request until the July 28, 2020 Planning Commission in order
to provide the applicant with additional time to: a) update the landscape plan to bring
it into conformance with the zoning ordinance, b) revise all development drawings to
reflect the updated parking and driveway layout for the hotel and apartment area, c)
provide additional information about the visual impact of the apartment buildings,
and d) address other concerns from the Planning Commission and public.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider several land use requests from KJ Walk, Inc.
associated with development plans for a hotel, senior apartments with some ground-floor commercial, and
a memory care facility on property along Business Parkway, north of 150th Street West (County Highway
42). The proposal covers portions of the commercial property within the Rosewood Estates subdivision
and requires amendments to change the future land use and zoning for some of this property to high
density residential. In addition to the land use and zoning changes, the applicant is requesting approval of
PUD Master Development and Final Development plans for a 79-unit hotel complex, 124 units of senior
housing in six individual buildings, two of which would have ground-level retail, and a 32-unit memory
care facility with related parking, driveway, grading and other improvements. In addition, the applicant is
seeking approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide the property into developable lots with one larger
outlot reserved for future development. Staff is recommending approval of the requests related to the
hotel and senior apartments; but is not recommending approval of applications necessary for the memory
care facility.
The applicant has been working with staff over the last several weeks to update the development plans
based on the City’s initial review feedback, which was part of the reason that this request was continued
from the last Planning Commission meeting. Not all of the development plans have been updated in
advance of the June 23, 2020 meeting, and the staff report identifies some areas, like landscaping, where
the current plans fall short of meeting the City’s minimum requirements. The Planning Commission may
decide that it would be beneficial to continue this item for another meeting in order to give the applicant
some additional time to address questions and deficiencies with the current application. The
recommended motions above include an alternative for the Commission to continue this request until its
next meeting with some expectations if this course of action is chosen.
Property Owner: Warren and Kathleen Israelson,
Applicant: KJ Walk, Inc.
Location: Outlots D, E, and F of Rosewood Estates – Northwest and
Northeast quadrants of 150th Street West and Business Parkway
Site Area in Acres: 11.16 Acres (not including outlots reserved for future development)
Comprehensive Plan Designation CC – Community Commercial
Requested Guiding: CC and HDR – High Density Residential
Current Zoning: C4/PUD – General Commercial & C3/PUD Community
Commercial
Requested Zoning: C4/PUD and R4/PUD– High Density Residential
4
Residential Units: 124 (memory care is counted as a group facility)
Gross Density (Res): 22.5 Units/Acre
Net Density (Res): 22.5 Units/Acre
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Multi-Family Residential
East: Single-Family Residential
South: Business Park
West: Commercial
Maximum Height: 35 Feet (C4 and R4 Districts)
Proposed Height: 53’ 9” Feet (39’ average height) Senior Apartments
40 Feet Hotel/19 Feet Memory Care
BACKGROUND
The proposed development site is located within the Rosewood Estates subdivision which was approved
by the City in 2001 as a predominately residential subdivision containing property stretching from 150th
Street in the South, to Biscayne Avenue in the east and 145th Street to the north (and further bounded by
the Progressive Rail line and the Grief Brothers/El Dorado industrial building). A little over 10 acres
directly along 150th Street and west of Business Parkway was guided and zoned for commercial uses at that
time. Since then, a large portion of the subdivision has been developed for single family homes, while
other portions have been reguided and rezoned for other uses. One of these changes occurred in 2004
when the City initiated a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment to zone all
undeveloped property within the subdivision adjacent to County Highway 42 and west of Business
Parkway for commercial development. This action created a continuous commercial area of just over 35
acres along Business Parkway and 149th Street West adjacent to the single-family residential sites within the
subdivision.
Around the time of the commercial land use amendments, the City was considering a concept plan for a
big-box retail development of the site, which would have been situated on all the property in Rosewood
Estates west of Business Parkway (roughly 24.5 acres). Included in this concept was a 175,000 square foot
general merchandise store (i.e. Target) along with a smaller area devoted to retail space adjacent to the
large user. This concept would have kept the existing commercial area along Highway 42 intact, providing
another 50,000 square feet of retail or restaurant uses. The concept plan never moved forward due to
access concerns and the site remained undeveloped.
In 2012 another development proposal came forward on portions of the subject property for a hotel, gas
station and car wash (on 2.2 acres east of Business Parkway), and five general commercial lots along
Highway 42. This concept was approved by the City but was never constructed nor was the related
subdivision recorded with the County. More recently, the City approved a request for an Anytime Fitness
facility and corresponding subdivision farther east of the former gas station site along 149th Street. As of
today, the Anytime Fitness building is the only commercial building that has been constructed within the
original Rosewood Estates commercial area.
The applicant has now come forward with a new plan for a portion of the Rosewood Estates property that
includes several different uses, and the proposed hotel is the only one that shares any similarities with the
previous land use approvals on the site. The other uses, senior apartments and a memory care facility, are
residential in nature and will require land use changes in order to be included as part of the project. In
order to accommodate the proposed uses, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into a new
subdivision called Rosewood Commons. The platted area will include the uses included in the present
request and will leave roughly 15 acres as an outlot for future development. As part of the planning for
the current requests, the applicant has prepared an overall concept for the site which plans for commercial
uses along County Road 42 and additional senior apartments further west, near the rail spur comprising
the western boundary of the plat. The applicant is not seeking approval for these future uses at this time
5
and would need to come back with development plans (and potential further land use changes) prior to
building on any portion of the larger outlot.
The current request includes three distinct uses that would be approved as part an overall Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the property. The applicant has submitted more detailed development plans that
address the City’s requirements for approval of both a master development plan and final site plan for the
PUD area. Overall, there are five distinct actions associated with the request as follows:
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the City’s future land use map from CC –
Community Commercial to HDR – High Density Residential for the Senior Apartment and
Memory Care portions of the development. The applicant is proposing to remove roughly 7.9
aces from the commercial land use category and change it to high density residential.
• Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the commercial property being regarded to the appropriate
zoning district. In this case, the applicant is proposing to rezone the land under the senior
apartments and memory from C4 – General Commercial to R4 – High Density Residential.
• PUD Master Development Plan with Rezoning to approve the overall preliminary plans for
the property, which includes a 79-room hotel, 124 senior apartments in six buildings, and a 32-
unit memory care facility. The PUD allows for a mix of uses on a development site and allows for
flexibility from meeting the dimensional standards of the zoning ordinance. In this case, the
applicant is requesting flexibility from some of the City’s standards, including the use of shared
parking facilities and the maximum height for structures.
• PUD Final Development Plan (Site Plan Review) to approve final development plans for the
specific uses and activities noted above. The City’s site plan review process can happen
concurrently with the review of the final development plans.
• Preliminary Plat to approve the Rosewood Commons preliminary plat creating separate lots for
the three uses and a larger outlot for future development. Please note that the City will need to
approve a final plat for specific project phases in the future.
Because staff is not recommending approval of the memory care portion of the development proposal and
does not support the reguiding or rezoning of the memory care site, the recommended motions have been
split into two groups: four motions approving the non-memory-care elements of the project and four
motions denying these elements. One final motion of approval concerning the preliminary plat is also
included and would not be impacted by the exclusion of the memory-care facility. A detailed review of
each element of the project is included below.
ISSUE ANALYSIS
Legal Authority . Amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan and approval of Planned Unit
Development Master Development Plans are legislative decisions because the City is formulating public
policy. The City may amend the Comprehensive Plan after a public hearing before the Planning
Commission and a two-thirds majority vote by the City Council. These applications also require
notification to the surrounding communities and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Preliminary plat approvals, as well as rezonings, are quasi-judicial decisions for the City meaning that the
City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if these applications meet the City’s established
requirements they must be approved. Staff review of each application is provided below.
Overall Site Layout
The site under consideration is one portion of the property owner’s total property ownership. In all, there
are 34 acres of land within the Rosewood area still available for development. Most of the area was
6
designated for commercial development although over time there has been discussion of allowing some
residential in portions of the site. The initial thought was more of an independent senior housing project,
located along County Road 42, most likely adjacent to Biscayne Avenue. After the rezoning of the sites to
commercial, the City and developer have had difficulty attracting retail and services to the site. First, it was
the lack of development east of Hwy 3. Now with more of the City’s development area near Akron
Avenue the issue continues to be the density of residential development, the preferred location on
property west of Hwy 3 along County Road 42, and the future configuration of the Business
Parkway/County Road 42 intersection. In part, the inability to attract a big box retailer has left the
property more difficult to develop as an all retail commercial area. For the above reasons, the property
owner has looked to provide a mix of uses that would allow development of the site; generally keeping
some of the City desired commercial elements along Hwy 42, particularly the installation of a hotel. The
incorporation of residential allows for an improved transition from the existing neighborhood to the north
and east and changes the potential land use impacts associated with the project.
The project before the Commission is generally one-half of the land west of Business Parkway. The
project includes 4-story senior apartments with first floor enclosed parking and the hotel building. Two of
the apartments contain some commercial space on the first level, the amount, 1,600 square feet could
accommodate two small, or one larger tenant. The remainder of the building has 20 apartments. The four
northern apartments not having commercial space are anticipated to have 21 apartment units. The
applicant is planning on having the buildings age restricted. South and west of the apartments is a 79 room
3-story hotel building. The flag of the hotel has not been identified at this time.
Primary access from Business Parkway to the western development area will be through a private drive
that extends the length of the site, paralleling County Road 42. The private road makes an intersection
with 149th Street which is a public road. The drive is used for access to the development further beyond
the current proposal. West of the current proposal is approximately 15 acres which may also be residential
in the north and commercial in the south. A second access to the west is proposed further to the north,
along Business Parkway but across from current single-family development. Staff is recommending some
changes to the configuration of the intersection with Business Parkway so that traffic out of the north
access is directed south only. Given the size of the property and the amount of potential development, two
access points into the western area is reasonable.
South and east, across Business Parkway is a single-story memory care project. The location is on the site
initially approved for a gas station. Rezoning and reguiding of the site is necessary to allow approval of the
memory care facility.
Site Plan Review – Hotel and Senior Apartments
The proposed site development plans incorporate the sharing of parking, access, and open space between
the hotel site and the senior housing buildings; therefore, the staff review comments associated with these
two uses are incorporated into one section. The memory care facility is reviewed in a separate section
because it is located on a separate and distinct lot from the other uses.
Land Use and Zoning
Under the proposed rezoning, the senior apartment buildings will be zoned R4 – High Density Residential
while the hotel site will retain the current C4 – General Commercial zoning on the site. The boundary
between these districts will therefore not follow a street or property line but will follow a line between the
buildings on Lots 3, 4, 5 and 7 and the hotel on Lot 6. Staff is recommending that the zoning boundary
line be aligned along the centerline of the private driveways separating these uses. Overall, the PUD will
allow the applicant to create a situation in which the buildings are on separate lots while the common
areas, including parking, driveway, and open space will be owned by an association. One of the purposes
of a PUD is to allow “more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through
7
mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land into larger parcels” and the site plan is a good
illustration of this concept. Many of the specific zoning dimensional standards will not apply because of
the integration between the hotel and apartment uses; however, staff will identify any relevant zoning
district requirements in the sections that follow.
The high density residential/apartment portion of the development site is 5.5 acres in size, and the overall
net density for this part of the sites is 22.5 units per acre. This number falls well within the range of 12-40
units per acre allowed in the HDR land use category. In terms of uses, The R4 zoning district specifies
that a mixed use project can be considered by the City as a PUD, therefore, the addition of the ground-
floor commercial units as part of the apartment development is appropriate and allowed under the zoning
requirements for the site.
Building Design - Hotel
The plans for the hotel call for a three-story design with a north-south orientation and direct access to the
driveway connecting Business Parkway with the future commercial uses to the west. The building will
include a covered canopy outside the main entrance, swimming pool and workout room, open lobby with
seating, small conference room/meeting space, and outdoor gathering space in addition to the 79
individual lodging rooms. Additionally, the second floor will feature a business center with access to an
outside deck covered with a metal trellis. The front entrance area will face towards the west and away
from the closest senior apartments. The applicant has indicated that they are hoping to find an existing
chain to build the hotel but have also stated that they intend to build the project on their own if one does
not come forward.
The proposed design of the building will make use of three primary materials including stone for the base
of the structure, white lap siding above the stone and under the gable ends of the roofline, and a vertical
metal panel material for the remaining portion of the exterior elevations. The massing of the building is
broken up using these different materials and a slight recessing of various segments along the east and
west elevations. The gable and hipped roof also provide some architectural interest along the roof line
while avoiding a long, unbroken view of the asphalt shingles. Comparing the proposal design to the City’s
list of permitted materials, it appears that amount of natural brick or stone used is substantially less than
required under the ordinance, which reads as follows:
11-4-14 G. 3. Permitted Materials: The exterior wall surfaces of all buildings shall be constructed of at least fifty
percent (50%) brick or natural stone. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the wall surface may be specialty integral
colored concrete block (including textured, burnished, and rock faced block), tile (masonry, stone or clay),
architectural textured concrete panels cast in place, or better. EIFS or masonry stucco may be used for the sign band
areas and/or architectural accents totaling no more than ten percent (10%) of the nonglass, brick or stone portion of
the building. Unadorned concrete is prohibited.
Staff is estimating that 15-20% of the exterior materials are natural stone compared to the ordinance
requirement of 50%. In looking back at the previous hotel approval on this site, the City did approve a
variation from the required percentages and justified this decision because a three-story hotel is expected
to have a different exterior design than a traditional single-story retail use in the C4 district. Consistent
with the previous review, staff believes the proposed design should incorporate an increased percentage of
brick or natural stone but also believes a reduced amount is acceptable given the other proposed design
elements. The overall design incorporates elements that are more residential in character, like the white lap
siding, which provides a good transition between the commercial areas to the west and the neighboring
residential uses. Staff is recommending a PUD condition that the non-glass exterior materials be at least
25% brick and stone and that the remaining materials can be lap siding, metal panels, or other materials
consistent with the ordinance. The proposed condition allows staff to administratively approve the final
building elevations in compliance with the City Code and the PUD standards for the exterior materials.
8
Building Design – Senior Apartments
The six proposed senior apartment buildings will all share an identical floor plan and exterior design, with
the only difference being two of the buildings closest to the hotel (Lots 5 and 7) will have ground floor
retail space while the other four will utilize this space for an additional residential unit. The applicant has
indicated this available space may also include another garage space. Staff does not support the additional
garage space independent of the lower level garage because a new access is needed, which is undesirable.
The buildings will be oriented so that the main entrance will be located along the north-south driveway
between the hotel and apartment area, and each will face green space on the interior of each block with
parking and drive aisles around the other side. There will be no direct access to Business Parkway for any
of the buildings, and all such access will occur at either the main entrance driveway across from 149th
Street West or the reduced access driveway north of Brenner Court.
The design of the buildings is somewhat unique and is heavily influenced by the decision to utilize most of
the ground level for interior parking. By utilizing ground floor parking, the applicant can reduce the
surface parking needed to accommodate the apartments while finishing the first floor in a way to reduce
the visual impact of the parking area. Parking below the ground elevation is not feasible in this situation
due to the size of the buildings and their minimal setbacks to the interior drive aisles. For the buildings
that will have retail on the ground level, the retail space will face outwards towards an adjacent driveway.
Each building will have 20 units of housing on, with 8 units on the second and third floors and 4 units on
the fourth floor. The four northern buildings will include one unit on the ground level first floor. The
units will be a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units, and based on the initial floor layout submitted by
the applicant, the breakdown will be 6 three-bedroom units, 6 two-bedroom units and 8 one-bedroom
units in each building, which some having an additional first floor two or three-bedroom unit. Overall, the
project will have 36 three bedroom, 36 two-bedroom and 48 one-bedroom apartments plus the ground
floor apartments. In addition to the private residential space, each building will include a lobby area, office
space, trash and recycling area with a roof deck on the fourth floor overlooking the common open space
between each building. In order to accommodate a roof deck, the fourth-floor units will only occupy
about half of the area on the fourth level, with other portion remaining open or housing a small common
space area, elevator shaft, and stairwells.
The exterior design and materials for each of the senior apartment buildings is generally consistent with
the City’s approval of similar buildings within planned development. The applicant is proposing a mixture
of fiber cement shakes/siding and masonry/stone veneer for most of the building elevations, with lesser
use of fiber cement board and batten siding, fiber cement trim, metal railings, and metal for trim for
secondary surface areas. Staff expected that the buildings without a commercial storefront will likely
eliminate the metal canopy and aluminum storefront for materials more consistent with the other
residential units. Because the submitted plans do not include a detailed breakdown of the percentage of
each material used, staff is recommending a condition of approval that no more than 60% of all exterior
elevations can be lap or shake siding to be consistent with other recent multi-family PUD approvals. Each
of the units will have access to a small balcony on the exterior of the building, with some of the second-
floor apartments able to take advantage of space above the garage. The building’s design incorporates
undulations and variation in each of the side elevations while ensuring that all four sides use a similar
design composition and use materials. Half of the roof is flat while the other half is a hipped and gable
design with asphalt singles to mimic a typical residential structure.
The overall concept for the project, including the hotel, is to provide an “urban village” feel with buildings
close to the street (or private driveways in this case), with sidewalks, traffic bump-outs, accessible green
space, and parallel parking to help promote walkability throughout the area. The proposed design should
help the project better integrate with the adjacent residential neighborhood and keeping most of the
9
vehicular movements and parking within the interior portions of the site. Overall, the design of the hotel
and apartment area addressed the PUD standards for providing a unique and unified development that
could not otherwise be built under standard zoning regulations.
Building Heights
One of the PUD deviations requested by the applicant is the ability to construct buildings that exceed the
minimum height requirement of 35 feet in the C4 and R4 zoning district. Each of the buildings as
proposed would have the following maximum height:
• Hotel – 40 feet (5 feet above maximum)
• Senior Apartments – 53 feet 9 inches. (18.75 feet above maximum)
Focusing on the Hotel, the additional height has been requested in order to allow 10-foot tall floors for all
three levels, which then means the lowest portion of the roof line starts at 30 feet above the ground
elevation. Because the hotel will include space that benefits from higher ceilings, including the pool,
lobby, and business center, staff is supportive of the request for additional height up to 40 feet for the
hotel. The hotel is also situated in the central portion of the development and will have a minimal impact
on future adjacent land uses.
The senior apartment buildings are planned with a higher overall height at just under 54 feet, well above
the R4 district requirement of 35 feet. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the zoning standard in
order to provide space above the ground level parking garage while still having three floors for apartment
units. The proposed design also allows the building to accommodate a roof deck overlooking the
common open space with living space on the fourth level as well. Although the additional height near the
existing single-family homes is a drawback to the proposed design, staff has found there are some benefits
to the unique design compared to a typical three-story apartment complex with parking underground. The
three-story apartment that have been approved recently (including Wexford Place) tend to be larger
buildings that extend longer distances along the adjacent streets for a full three stories. By adding the
additional height and constructing fewer units in each building, the applicant can provide much more open
space between buildings and help minimize the total mass of the structures on the site and minimize the
number of windows facing the street.
Another aspect of the applicant’s proposal that may help reduce the overall impact of the apartment
building height is that the upper-most level only includes half the number of apartments as on the second
and third level, leaving the remainder of the roof open, at least as viewed from the ground level. The side
of the senior apartment buildings facing east towards the single-family area is roughly 76 feet in width, and
of that, about half of this elevation reaches the full 54 feet in height. The remainder of the roof line is flat
and no higher than 35 feet (not including the proposed portico, stairwells, and landing area that are all set
back from the roof line. The applicant has also proposed a more extensive landscaping treatment of
overstory trees along Business Parkway and will be planting trees that should come close to matching the
height of the apartment buildings when they reach full maturity. With the building design, open space
between buildings, and proposed landscaping staff believes the PUD with additional building height does
allow for a better alternative to the type of building that would be built under the City’s conventional
zoning.
The applicant has provided a cross section view of a senior apartment building in relation to the adjacent
street and a typical single-family home with appropriate setbacks. The drawing is intended to provide a
little better sense of the scale and distance between the existing single family homes and proposed
apartments.
10
Please note that staff has done a quick survey of several surrounding communities, many of which specify
maximum building heights of 45 feet or more in their high-density residential zoning districts. In order to
achieve densities above 20 units per acre (and Rosemount’s zoning allows up to 40 units per acre in R4
districts) the additional height often is necessary.
Building Setbacks
The zoning regulations concerning setbacks within the C4 zoning district do not apply to the proposed
PUD, which, by definition, allows a mix of uses and activities on a development site that would not
otherwise be possible under the base zoning standards. The same logic applies to the apartment buildings
that have been specifically designed to be constructed with a minimal setback to the internal drive aisles.
One area that should be considered is the R4 district setback from Business Parkway since this is the
portion of the site abutting an adjacent neighborhood. Under the R4 requirements, the minimum setback
to the street is 30 feet, whereas the proposed apartment buildings will either meet the setback or be
setback further than the minimum. Specifically, the southernmost apartment building is setback 30 feet
from the public road right-of-way, while all buildings further north are set back at least 40 from the road.
The southern setback is less than the others, partially because the road widens in this location to
accommodate a turn lane into the commercial area, so the building is not any closer to a residential
property than any others in the development. At the far north end of the site, the applicant’s property
directly abuts a single-family lot, but the apartment building is set back nearly 80 feet from this lot.
Parking and Access
Access to both the apartment area and hotel site occurs at two locations along Business Parkway via
private driveways. The southern access will allow two-way traffic and full turning movements while the
northern access will be restricted to right or left turns in, but only right turns out (3/4 access). All access
drives, with the exception of the first 150 feet of the southern segment, will have either parallel, 90 degree,
or angled parking immediately off of the driving lanes. At staff’s direction, all parking off of the north-
south driveway between the apartments and hotel was changed to angled parking in order to provide
better traffic movement along the primary connector road within the project area (90 degree parking is
rarely used along a more heavily-traveled road). Staff also recommended no parking along the first
segment of the southern east-west road in order avoid traffic conflicts at the main commercial entrance.
The applicant has provided a parking analysis for the site using the requirements found in the City’s
parking standards. Because the parking will be available for all users on the site, the analysis does not look
at each building individually, but rather combines all required parking for the separate uses to determine an
overall number. The combined parking analysis is an appropriate use of the flexibility provided by a PUD.
Due to some modifications to the site plan since the initial application submittal, some of the applicant’s
numbers need to be updated to reflect the most recent version of the development plans. The updated
numbers are as follows:
Use Units/Area Standard Required
Parking
Apartment 124 2 per unit 248
Retail 3,600 Sq Ft 5 per 1,000 Sq Ft 18
Hotel 79 Rooms + 6 Staff 1 per room +
1 per Staff
85
Open Space/Park 0
Total Required 351
Interior Parking Provided(Apartments) 122
Surface Parking Provided 261
Total Provided 383
Above Individual Use Minimum (Surplus) 32
11
Overall, the parking provided exceeds the minimum that would be required for each use individually under
the base zoning requirements. The parking stalls are concentrated around the hotel site, but the applicant
has worked with staff on some revisions to provide additional surface parking closer to each of the
residential buildings. By meeting and exceeding the City’s parking standards for each individual use, the
parking is not expected to spill over into the residential neighborhood or create any problems for each
building.
Landscaping
The applicant has provided a landscape plan in addition to the other required submissions. The following
chart compares the landscaping provide compared to the City’s landscape ordinance for each of the
underlying zoning districts and land uses:
Landscaping Requirement Comparison
Type Size/Units Standard Required Proposed Status
Trees (R4) 124 units 1 tree / unit. 124
Trees (C4) 90,000 Sq Ft 1 tree / 3,000 Sq Ft 30
Total Trees - - 154 54 100 Short
Foundation
Plantings 3,054 Ft 1 planting/10 linear
feet of building 305 290 15 Short
Parking Area
Landscape
Need to
Calculate 5% landscaping Need
Calculation
Parking Area
Trees
Need to
Calculate 1 tree/250 sq. ft. Need
Calculation
The above landscaping analysis does not account for the the memory care site, and staff’s comments for
the memory care facility are found later in this report. More trees will be needed to meet the minimum
landscape requirements if the memory care portion of the project is approved by the City. Staff also was
not able to complete a review of the parking lot landscaping, and the applicant will need to update the
plans to take the City’s requirements for interior parking lot landscaping into account. The site plan
includes several landscape islands and bump-outs within parking areas, and generally appears that it would
meet the City’s minimum size requirements for such areas. Because the City also requires trees in parking
lot landscape areas, additional trees will need to be planted in these areas as well.
Overall, the landscape plan falls well short of meeting the City’s minimum planting requirements, and staff
is recommending a condition of approval that the ordinance standards be met in terms of the minimum
number of overstory trees, foundation plantings, and parking lot trees. Staff has also noted that the plans
include the planting of ash trees which is not recommended due to potential issues with the emerald ash
borer disease and the long-term viability of this species of tree. An updated landscape plan will need to
remove ash from the tree planting list. There are no existing trees on the site; therefore, no replacement
trees are required.
Sidewalks and Trails
The proposed development plans depict sidewalks along both sides of all access drives. All proposed
buildings have been designed to mimic a downtown feel by moving them up to the edge of the sidewalk,
which is intended to promote walkability along these corridors. All buildings also have walkways
separating parking lots from the buildings and have direct connections to all entrances. There are
currently sidewalks on both sides of Business Parkway and one side of 149th Street West, and the
applicant’s site will tie into the existing sidewalk system at each driveway entrance. Although the individual
uses (and especially the hotel) will still be dependent on cars for the vast majority of their business, the
12
proposed sidewalk system and building layout should create a more pedestrian friendly environment than a
typical commercial project.
Signage
The applicant has not provided any information about joint signage for the project, and will need to meet
the ordinance standards for signage on the individual buildings. A freestanding sign at the intersection of
Business Parkway and 150th Street West will likely be requested when the future commercial areas within
Rosewood Estates are developed.
Site Plan Review – Memory Care Facility
The applicant is proposing a rezoning and reguiding of the land use designation for the memory care
property. Currently the property is designated as CC-Community Commercial and zoned C3-Highway
Service Commercial. The proposed residential use is incompatible with both the land use designation and
the zoning. Originally, the site was zoned to C3-Highway Service Commercial to accommodate a gas
station with car wash on the site, but those plans were never implemented. To allow for construction of
the memory care facility, the applicant is requesting the land use designation be changed to HDR-High
Density Residential. There is also a request to rezone the site to R4 PUD-High Density Residential
Planned Unit Development. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the expansion of opportunities for
shopping and jobs for Rosemount residents as a goal. The plan specifically mentions that land should be
guided for commercial development at key nodes along County Road 42, specifically mentioning the
intersection of County Road 42 and Business Parkway among others. Ensuring there is adequate land for
future commercial development, particularly along high traffic roadways means that reguiding and
rezoning the site is inconsistent with these goals. The City has continually been told that additional
residential, and residential density, is necessary to attract more commercial users to the community. With
the future development of UMore, and the continued development of the Akron Avenue area, more
traffic and density will be forthcoming. It is understood that the applicant has owned this land for some
time and would like to realize a return on his investment. However, staff believes commercial demand will
continue to ramp up on Rosemount. Because the economic reality is that commercial follows residential
growth, it is prudent to maintain commercially designated land for commercial development which may
mean waiting or denying other less desired land uses. Staff does support memory care facilities and has
spoken with the applicant about placement of the project elsewhere on his property, however there was
strong interest to be located along County Road 42. Based upon community goals and discussions about
commercial development by the Commission and Council, staff does not support approval of the memory
care facility and all approvals to facilitate that portion of the applicant’s request. The recommendation
section reflects denial of all approvals associated with the memory care for the reasons noted above.
Although staff is not supportive of the memory care project in the proposed location, staff has reviewed
the project based upon the site plan applications submitted below. Should the Commission want to
approve the project, that portion of the application should be continued so staff could create appropriate
conditions of approval.
Site Layout
The 3.05-acre site would contain a 32 unit, single story memory care building. The site currently has
approval for the gas station with canopy and includes a car wash. The building is U shaped, with the front
of the building facing south, toward County Road 42. The only site access is from the 149th Street, on the
far eastern edge of the site. The access drive runs along the eastern edge of the building opening into the
22-stall parking lot. Because there is not additional access into the site, there is a cul de sac type turn-
around at the western end of the parking lot.
Preliminary Plat
The 3.05 acre site is currently a separately platted outlot which contains portions of County Road 42, 149th
13
Street, and a part of the land north of 149th Street. As part of the plat, the applicant illustrates dedication of
right of way for County Road 42 and 149th Street. The later is an expanded right of way which abuts the
rear yards of four development single family lots on Brenner Court. The plans also indicated that an
eastern strip of the property will be replatted to outlot B, the lot line bisects the proposed private drive.
Staff does not support that reduction in lot area, more due to the fact that the outlot B is unbuildable on
its’ own and there is concern it could end up in tax forfeiture. The sharing of the drive into the site makes
the potential outcome more concerning.
Building Massing and Materials
The building itself will largely by one story with a section in the center of the building that extends above
the rest. The building height when measured as the average height between the peak and eaves is 18.5 feet,
which is below the maximum building height allowed by the zoning ordinance of 35’. The plans provided
by the applicant indicate that the building will be clad in a combination of stone face and lap siding, being
much more residential in character. Walls are broken up through the use of vertical elements, windows,
and articulation of the roof line. The building’s massing and materials meet the requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
Access & Parking
The only access to the site is from along 149th Street, on the eastern edge of the site. It appears that
through the proposed plat, the driveway will be sliced in half, with the eastern portion being allocated to a
new lot, Outlot B. In some cases staff supports a shared driveway for both benefiting properties, although
it seems undesirable to create the outlot B which cannot function on it’s own as a separate buildable lot.
The private driveway is 24’ in width which is acceptable. The parking area appears slightly undersized, as
the ordinance requires 90 degree parking with drive aisle should be 62’ in width. Additionally, the Fire
Marshal has requested that the applicant review the entire site for fire equipment access. These changes
would be required if the project would move forward.
The site plan shows 22 stalls available on site. Staff recognizes that a 32-unit memory care does not need
parking for individual tenants but will need parking for visitors and staff. The applicant has not provided
any information regarding staffing, which would lead to parking demand on the site. Additionally, staff is
concerned about a viable location for off-site parking during busy times. If approved, information would
be required to better understand the facility operations and parking demand.
Landscaping
The site landscape plan includes some landscaping along the south property line with one line of 18
Colorado Blue Spruce. There are also three groupings of 3 trees, either Maple, Linden or Ash, in the
northeast, northwest and central portion of the site facing 149th Street. A plan inset indicates foundation
plantings will be installed around the building; there will be 290 shrubs including St John’s Wort, Low
Grow Sumac, Tor Spirea, Hyperion Daylily, Dwarf Lilac or similar. The landscape plan is lacking from
what the City would expect for a project such ad this. There is no landscaping on either side of the
building, which is especially important on the west side of the building which also functions as a front yard
and is the entryway into the commercial area and residential neighborhood beyond. If approved a new,
much more robust, landscape plan would be required. An underground irrigation system would also be
required. There are no significant trees currently located on the site.
Grading & Utilities
The site is relatively flat with the south and northwest portions of the site at the 950 elevation. There is
little grading necessary for development of the site as proposed. Stormwater from the parking will be
captured in catch basins and directed to the existing eastern pond. The north portion of the site including
building will drain to the north, with stormwater piped to the in-place system within 149th Street. Other
public utilities will be extended from 149th Street also.
14
Overall Site Issues
Utilities and Stormwater Management
The site is served by existing public utilities that will need to be extended to the various buildings within
the project. The public utilities available in Business Parkway are large enough to provide adequate service
to the current proposal as well as future phases anticipated west of the current project.
From a stormwater standpoint, this site has several regional ponds that take drainage from outside of the
project area. When the ponds were first designed, they met standards at that time. Unfortunately,
regulations have changed and additional storage would be needed when the entire site is developed.
During this interim development the existing system is functional and will not adversely affect existing
properties. The City’s consulting engineer has reviewed the in-place system upon full development with
could require some additional ponding. One option is to provide a second connection to the pond south
of County Road 42, within the Rosemount business park and use additional capacity in that pond.
However, it presently doesn’t have an outlet which depending upon timing of full development, may
prompt the need for another temporary pond further to the south. The other option, again, upon full site
development would be to purchase additional land for regional ponding. The cost of the additional
ponding would be credited to the developer and purchased through the City’s stormwater fund. It is
unclear that the final determination needs to be made now, when only about 1/3 of the entire
landholdings will be developed under this application. However, a final determination will need to be made
if future development occurs to the south, or additional development occurs within this larger site. The
applicant has provided several regional ponds and there is a stormwater credit they will receive with
approval of this site.
Traffic Study
A study was conducted because Business Parkway (148th Street, Blanca) functions like a neighborhood
collector through the Rosewood neighborhood. While it is assumed much of the commercial traffic will
come and go to the south, via Business Parkway to County Road 42, there is concern about traffic
traversing through the neighborhood. New residents may enter or exit the neighborhood from the north,
in an attempt to bypass signal lights at County Road 42 and Hwy 3. At present, it appears that Business
Parkway carries traffic within an acceptable range 640 (at 149th Street). However, it is not possible to
obtain representative traffic counts further to the north due to irregular traffic patterns caused by COVID.
It would be reasonable to assume traffic is currently higher at the southern and northern portions of the
road as there are several residential streets that empty unto the Business Parkway/148th Street/Blanca.
The Traffic Study assessed the trip generation of the proposal versus the previous big box/all commercial
site plan previously anticipated. The study found that there are slightly less trips generated by the current
proposal than the previous. There is an approximate 10% reduction in the AM and PM peaks and about a
7.5% decrease in total weekday trips. The study takes into account the concept plan for the entire site, not
just the components currently under review. The Study also considers the apartments as senior apartments.
From a traffic perspective the current proposal is reasonable given that the senior apartments are 62% of
the total apartments estimated along with the hotel use. That totals 85 AM Peak, 88 PM Peak, and 1121
average daily trips. Staff would recommend that any further development in the western portion of the
Rosewood properties conduct a new traffic study to benchmark the existing traffic volumes and determine
impacts when new development would occur.
Staff is aware that there have been concerns by the neighborhood about the location of the northern
access into the project. When it was anticipated that all site development would be commercial, the goal
was to shift access south, away from existing residential development. The assumption also was that most
15
regional, versus local, shoppers would use County Road 42 to come to the site, rather than travel through
the neighborhood. With the residential land use proposed it makes sense to have a second access into the
site. From a spacing standpoint, the proposed location makes sense as it separates commercial users from
the new residents. The residential land use does reduce the traffic generation as compared to commercial.
However, due to increased traffic concerns, and the desire to direct most traffic to the south, staff has
recommended that a restricted ¾ turn be installed at the northern access.
Parks and Open Space
The City’s subdivision ordinance requires all new developments (both residential and commercial) to
dedicate a percentage of the overall subdivision area for public park purposes. The City may also elect to
accept a fee in lieu of land dedication when development occurs in an area that is not planned for any
public parks. In this case, the Parks and Recreation Director has reviewed the proposed subdivision and
indicated that there are no planned City parks in the area within or surrounding the subject property and
no land was dedicated for the outlots within the Rosewood Estates subdivision; therefore, the City is
requesting a fee in lieu of land dedication for the project. The required dedication is 10% of the land area,
and the City’s fee schedule identifies the required cash in lieu of land at $90,000 per acre for a commercial
subdivision and $2,500 per unit for high density housing. The total cash in lieu of land dedication for the
entire development (without the memory care component) is as follows:
• Commercial: 2.1 acres x $90,000 x 10% = $18,900
• High Density Residential: 124 units x $2,500 = $310,000
Please note that these numbers are slightly different than the ones provided by the Parks and Recreation
Director because they do not include the memory care site and consider a slightly larger commercial area.
The applicant may either pay this entire fee in one payment or may pay the fee with the issuance of each
individual building permit within subdivision on a prorated basis.
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat takes advantage of the City’s PUD regulations to allow a subdivision with common
ownership of the open areas, parking lots, and driveway around each building. A final plat must be
approved for each phase of the project prior to construction of any buildings.
Phasing
The development plans include a phasing plan indicating that the memory care facility, hotel, and two
senior apartments would be the first buildings constructed. A northern four senior apartments would be
phase two and constructed later.
Lighting
The proposed lighting plan includes a mix of pole lights along drive aisles and within parking lots and
building lights on the exterior of each building. A photometric plan has been submitted in conjunction
with the other plans and illustrate that the project and all lighting will meet the City’s requirements for
minimizing the intensity of light at the project boundaries.
Other Engineering Comments. The Engineering department has reviewed the PUD development
plans, and engineering comments are detailed in the attached memo dated June 23, 2020. Because the
proposed development is a new project within a new subdivision, the applicant will need to pay all
applicable area and connection charges related the public utility connections for the building.
DRAFT PUD FINDINGS (HOTEL/SENIOR APARTMENTS)
According to Section 11-10-6 C.1, the planning commission and city council shall base their
16
recommendations and actions regarding the applicable PUD application on consideration of the items
listed below.
1. Compatibility of the proposed plan with the PUD standards and the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the PUD standards and the goals and
policies of the comprehensive plan. Generally, the comprehensive plan calls for expansion of the City’s tax base and
promoting the creation of new jobs within the community and encourages the development of commercial property
along major traffic corridors like County Highway 42. The development of senior housing near downtown
Rosemount is also supported by the following housing goals from the City’s housing plan:
a. Disperse high density residential in appropriate areas throughout the community to provide mixed
residential density neighborhoods and lifecycle housing opportunities.
b. Differing housing opportunities should provide variation in housing style and price point for residents
c. Locate high density residential with access to the collector and arterial street network.
d. Locate high density residential in conjunction with Downtown and the commercial areas along County
Road 42 to create mixed use neighborhoods and transit-oriented districts.
e. Provide opportunities for seniors to live near their children and families.
2. Effect of the proposed plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located. Finding: The proposed
development has been designed to provide a buffer between the existing single-family residential neighborhood and the
planned higher density housing and commercial uses to the west. The arrangement of the senior housing buildings
provides opportunities for additional open space and for screening that would otherwise not be possible with a typical
multifamily building. The PUD allows for an arrangement of buildings, driveways, and parking areas that are
intended to promote walkability and pedestrian access. The plans provide a substantial amount of separation
between the commercial parking areas and adjacent single-family areas.
3. Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities, circulation and parking facilities,
public facilities, recreation areas, open spaces, screening and landscaping. Finding: the site’s
organization and layout are designed to accommodate a series of six senior apartment buildings and hotel that will
share a common private road system and use shared driveways and parking between all buildings. The shared road
and driveways will provide adequate maneuvering for vehicle and trucks entering and exiting the site while
minimizing the overall amount of impervious surfaces on the site and providing more green space, landscape areas,
and required storm water ponding facilities. The northern access driveway has been designed as a limited access
intersection that will minimize the amount of cars heading north into an existing single-family nieghborgood.
Parking and landscaping will be required to meet the City’s minimum requirements
4. Consistency with the standards of section 11-10-3 of this chapter pertaining to site and building
plan review. Finding: The proposed development meets or exceeds the development standards for the C4 and R4
districts with the noted PUD exceptions. The overall building area, lot coverage, and expected traffic are all
consistent with development in the City’s commercial and high density residential districts. The traffic study
performed for the proposed development indicates that the existing, adjacent road network will be able to
accommodate the expected traffic from the development.
5. Such other factors as the planning commission or city council deems relevant.
As noted in an earlier section of this report, Staff is not recommending approval of a land use and zoning
change to allow the memory care facility on property east of Business Parkway. The reasons for this
recommendation are stated in this section of the report. No additional findings concerning the denial of
the PUD for the memory care facility have been drafted and are not necessary if the property retains its
current commercial land use and zoning classification.
17
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided by the applicant and reviewed in this report, staff is recommending
approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Master
Development and Final Development Plans, and Preliminary Plat associated with the 124-unit senior
apartment and 79-room hotel development subject to the conditions listed above. Staff is further
recommending denial of the associated requests for approval of a 32-unit memory care facility east of
Business Parkway. Recommended motions for all recommended actions are listed at the beginning of this
report.
As an alternative, the Planning Commission may consider continuing its review to its next meeting in
order to give the applicant time to address the issues identified in this report..
BUSINESS PKY148TH ST W
BUSINESSPKWYBOYSENBERRY CT
BRENNER CT BOSTONCIR149TH ST W
BUSINESS PKY148TH ST W
BUSINESSPKWYBOYSENBERRY CT
BRENNER CT BOSTONCIR149TH ST W
Figure 1: Existing Future Land Use
BUSINESS PKY148TH ST W
BUSINESSPKWYBOYSENBERRY CT
BRENNER CT BOSTONCIRL 147TH CT W
149TH ST W
Proposed Change:
CC - Community Commercial to
CC - Community Commercial/HDR - High Density Residential
Figure 2: Proposed Future Land Use
MXD: T:\Project\CommDev\LandUse\ProposedChanges\RosewoodEstates\RosewoodEstates.mxd PDF: I:\GIS\Map_Library\CommDev\LandUse
Proposed Land Use Amendment
AG Agriculture
DT Downtown
NC Neighborhood Commercial
RC Regional Commercial
CC Community Commercial
AGR Agricultural Research
RR Rural Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
TR Transitional Residential
MDR Medium Density Residential
HDR High Density Residential
PI Public/Institutional
PO Existing Parks/Open Space
BP Business Park
LI Light Industrial
GI General Industrial
WM Waste Management
150TH ST (CSAH 42)150TH ST (CSAH 42)
5/11/2020
0 400200 Feet
Proposed Change:
CC - Community Commercial to
HDR - High Density Residential
Figure 3: Existing Zoning Designations
BUSINESS PKY148TH ST W
BUSINESSPKWYBOYSENBERRY CT
BRENNER CT BOSTONCIRL 147TH CT W
149TH ST W
Proposed Change:
C4 PUD to C4/R4 PUD
Figure 4: Proposed Zoning Designations
MXD: T:\Project\CommDev\LandUse\ProposedChanges\RosewoodEstates\RosewoodEstatesZoning.mxd PDF: I:\GIS\Map_Library\CommDev\LandUse
Proposed Zoning Amendment
PUDZoningResidential:
RR - Rural Residential
R1 - Low Density Residential
R1A - Low Density Residential
R2 - Moderate Density Residential
R3 - Medium Density Residential
R4 - High Density ResidentialCommercial:
C1 - Convenience Commercial
DT - Downtown District
C3 - Highway Service Commercial
C4 - General Commercial
Industrial:
BP - Business Park
IP - Industrial Park
GI - General Industrial
HI - Heavy IndustrialOther:
AGP - Agricultural Preserve
AG - Agricultural
PI - Public/Institutional
FP - Flood Plain
WM - Waste Management
W - Water
ROW - Right-of-Way
150TH ST (CSAH 42)150TH ST (CSAH 42)
5/12/2020
0 400200 Feet
Proposed Change:
C3 PUD to R4 PUD
3536383937434140421 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11 1213141516
8'8'RESTAURANTRESTAURANT
RETAIL/RESTAURANT
RETAIL
RETAIL 40 UNIT APARTMENTS40 UNIT APARTMENTS8'RETAIL 8'8'8'8'8'1
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=953.0
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=958.0
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=958.0
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=958.0
21 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGFFE=956.5 21 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGFFE=956.5
HOTELFFE=957.0 GREEN SPACE9'
C . S . A . H 4 2
Rivers of Life Memory Care Facility32 UNITSFFE=951
9'GREEN SPACEGREEN SPACEGREEN SPACEAAAAA
A
M M
MAA
A
AA
A
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
AA
A
M M
M18" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM
SEWER
15" STORM SEWER15"15"12"952954954956952956950
952956956 CONVERT TO CB
REMOVE EXISTINGCB 5308
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date: Revision:
Original
Cover
ROSEMOUNT, MN
SHEET 1 of 7
Date: 5/6/2020
FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Rivers of Life Rosemount Site Plan.dwg
ROSEWOOD COMMONS
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Luke Warren Israelson
Registration #: 51362
Legend
Existing watermain
Proposed watermain
Existing sanitary
Proposed sanitary
Existing storm
Proposed storm
Existing hydrant
Proposed hydrant
Existing gate valve
Proposed gate valve
Existing manhole
Proposed manhole
Proposed catchbasin
Silt fence
Inlet protectors
Parking lot lights
Building Lights
Rip Rap
Drainage Arrow
Spot Elevation963.90
DEVELOPER/ENGINEER/BUILDER
KJ Walk, Inc.Luke Israelson
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100 952.826.9068
Savage, MN 55378
Legal Description:
Outlot D, Outlot E and Outlot F, Rosewood Estates,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
02/21/2020
SHEET INDEX1 Cover2 Preliminary Plat3 Preliminary Grading4 Preliminary Utilities5 Rosewood Commons Site Plan6 Rivers of Life Site Plan7 Preliminary Landscape Plan
For Review
May 6, 2020
Revised03/02/2020
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
0 100 200 300
Revised05/06/2020
Impervious vs Pervious
Area Sq Ft Percent
Total Area 1104361
Building Foot Print 233643 21.16%
Pond B (NWL)15078 1.37%
Green Space 364339 32.99%
Parking/Sidewalks 491300 44.49%
1
9
1
.0991.00114.00
114.00
114.00
91.00114.00
91.00114.00
91.00114.0091.00114.00
91.00114.00
114.00
91.00114.00
114.00
91.00114.00
104.92
250.12150.5859.3245.67 190.8091.0091.0091.0091.001
246.1255.00
97.54274.61 291.0045.68
291.0045.68 291.01N10°31'20"W36.71N08°01'47"W43.59N00°07'06"E43.36178.15Δ=63°47'40"R=585.7698.81Δ=13°09'56"30.00
45.0010.0020.0020.0030.0030.00
10.0010.00 S00°24'29"W396.96S89°39'14"W366.88
S89°32'54"W319.91S00°27'07"E122.54S00°27'07"E122.54S89°32'54"W1012.99N00°47'07"E402.63S23°54'31"W418.03N89°52'23"W265.73
S27°39'22"W91.47638.67Δ=62°28'17"S07°10'09"E128.86N02°31'25"E123.31N05°59'24"W40.53N19°28
'08"W30.25N00°07'37"E299.18N05°52'53"E86.4733.85Δ=8°08'53"R=430.00R=160.00R=100.00R=238.0044.48Δ=9°26'19"R=270.00S83°41'32"W N00°24'29"E80.95S89°32'21"W
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date: Revision:
Original
Preliminary Plat
SHEET 2 of 7
Date: 5/6/2020
FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Rivers of Life Rosemount Site Plan.dwg
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Luke Warren Israelson
Registration #: 51362
0 60 120 180
02/21/2020
Revised03/02/2020
ROSEMOUNT, MN
For Review
May 6, 2020
Revised05/06/2020
3536383937434140421 2 3 48'8'RESTAURANTRESTAURANT
RETAIL/RESTAURANT
RETAIL
RETAIL 40 UNIT APARTMENTS40 UNIT APARTMENTS8'RETAIL 8'8'8'8'8'1
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=953.0
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=958.0
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=958.0
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=958.0
21 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGFFE=956.5 21 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGFFE=956.5
HOTELFFE=957.0 GREEN SPACE9'
C . S . A . H 4 2
Rivers of Life Memory Care Facility32 UNITSFFE=951
9'GREEN SPACEGREEN SPACEGREEN SPACELP
51.5
HP
57.6
LP
56.0
56.5
52.656.4
55.5
18" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM
SEWER
15" STORM SEWER15"15"12"952954954956952956950
952956956
20'X 75' ROCKCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
20'X 75' ROCKCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
REMOVE CURB
CONVERT TO CB
REMOVE EXISTINGCB 5308
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date: Revision:
Original
Preliminary Grading &
Erosion Control
SHEET 3 of 7
Date: 5/6/2020
FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Rivers of Life Rosemount Site Plan.dwg
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Luke Warren Israelson
Registration #: 51362
0 60 120 180
02/21/2020
Silt Fence to be installed along perimeter of
construction area prior to the start of work.
Revised03/02/2020
ROSEMOUNT, MN
For Review
May 6, 2020
Revised05/06/2020
3536383937434140421 2 3 48'8'RESTAURANTRESTAURANT
RETAIL/RESTAURANT
RETAIL
RETAIL 40 UNIT APARTMENTS40 UNIT APARTMENTS8'RETAIL 8'8'8'8'8'1
9'9'
8" PVC @ 0.40%952954954956952956950
952956956MH1T=52.30I=33.73
EX-MH6030T=49.23I=32.77
MH2T=57.15I=35.33
MH2T=55.75I=36.61
MH2T=56.6I=34.74
TEMP FIRE HYDRANT
TEMP FIRE HYDRANT
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date: Revision:
Original
Preliminary Utilities
SHEET 4 of 7
Date: 5/6/2020
FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Rivers of Life Rosemount Site Plan.dwg
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Luke Warren Israelson
Registration #: 51362
0 60 120 180
02/21/2020
Revised03/02/2020
ROSEMOUNT, MN
For Review
May 6, 2020
Revised05/06/2020
35363839371
51
8
2210
1740 175236616211819553
8 101280110
87808710103871080110 87110 80801087103 10
8010103
878'RETAIL40 UNIT APARTMENTS8'RETAIL 8'8'8'8'8'1
32
1 12
1
20
1 13
16
1
1 4
14
1
1 1
2
1 415
1 4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
13 13
1
1 11
1 9
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00 24.0028.0028.0024.0024.0024.00
24.00 24.00
28.0063.001
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=953.0
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIALFFE=958.0
21 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGFFE=958.021 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGFFE=958.0
21 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGFFE=956.5 21 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGFFE=956.5
HOTELFFE=957.0
76.00 140.8391.5068.5091.5087.1987.2376.00
79.33
76.00
117.77
40.59
31.97
63.00103
110
103103
110 110
1 11
1 924.00GREEN SPACEGREEN SPACEGREEN SPACEGREEN SPACE952954954956952956952956956
EX-MH6030
T=49.23I=32.778'1
2
14
1
1 12
1 12
13
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date:
02/21/2020
Revision:
Original
Site Plan
UNIT APARTMENTS
SHEET 5 of 7
Date: 6/5/2020
FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised.dwg
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Luke Warren Israelson
Registration #: 51362
Rosewood Commons
Use and Parking Requirements
USE UNITS /
AREA
PARKING
STANDARD
REQUIRED
PARKING
Apartment & Retail 122 units 2 per unit 244
Retail 7200 Sq Ft 5 per 1000 36
Hotel 79 Rooms + 6
Staff
1 per Room +
1 per Staff 85
Open Space / Park 0
Total Required 365
Provided Below Ground (Apartments)122
Provided Above Ground 245
Total Provided 367
0 40 80 120
Revised03/02/2020
HOTEL AND 20
ROSEMOUNT, MN
Surface materials for the streets/parking, sidewalks
and driveways will be a combination of blacktop,
concrete and stamped concrete.
For Review
June 5, 2020
Revised05/06/2020
Revised06/05/2020
3839434140421 2 3 4 58791.005
5
20 UNIT APARTMENT BLDGWITH COMMERCIAL
31.97
246.12
55.00
97.54274.61 291.0040.0024.0024.00
9'1
1 13
9
30.00 30.0030.0520.0010.0024.56
C . S . A . H 4 2
Rivers of Life Memory Care Facility32 UNITSFFE=951
45.68
291.0045.68 291.0141
1381
44 222
84 220
249 15
2116
617 621
133 2111
84 220
248 22
24 411402582782510919122512191092482882214
9'N10°31'20"W36.71N08°01'47"W43.59N00°07'06"E43.3698.81Δ=13°09'56"30.0030.00
10.0010.00 S00°24'29"W396.96S89°39'14"W366.88
S89°32'54"W319.91S00°27'07"E122.54S00°27'07"E122.54S07°10'09"E128.86N02°31'25"E123.31N05°59'24"W40.53N19°28
'08"W30.25N05°52'53"E86.4733.85Δ=8°08'53"R=430.00R=100.00R=238.0044.48Δ=9°26'19"6.37Δ=3°39'03"R=270.00950
S83°41'32"W N00°24'29"E80.95S89°32'21"W
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date: Revision:
Original
Site Plan
Rivers of Life
ROSEMOUNT, MN
SHEET 6 of 7
Date: 5/6/2020
FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Rivers of Life Rosemount Site Plan.dwg
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Luke Warren Israelson
Registration #: 51362
Memory Care
Rivers of Life
Use and Parking Requirements
USE UNITS /
AREA
PARKING
STANDARD
REQUIRED
PARKING
Senior Citizen
Housing 32 units 0.5 per unit 16
Provided 22
0 30 60 90
02/21/2020
Revised03/02/2020
For Review
May 6, 2020
Revised05/06/2020
3536383937434140421 2 3 48'RESTAURANTRESTAURANT
RETAIL/RESTAURANT 8'8'8'8'8'8'9'9'AAAAA
A
M M
M
AA
A
AA
A
M M
M M
M
M
M M
M
A
A
A
M
M
M
EX-MH6030T=49.23I=32.778'M
MM
M
M
M
A
A
SHRUBS SPACED 30" ON CENTERBUILDING
POLY LANDSCAPING EDGE
TYPICAL BUILDING LANDSCAPING
(NOT TO SCALE)
SIDEWALK
MULCH BED
SOD
6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378
Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com
Date: Revision:
Original
Preliminary Landscape Plan
SHEET 7 of 7
Date: 6/18/2020
FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised.dwg
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Luke Warren Israelson
Registration #: 51362
0 60 120 180
02/21/2020
COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE
1/3 TREEHEIGHTROOT CROWN AT
FINISH GRADE,
OR 1-2" ABOVE GRADE
FINISH GRADE
TILLED OR BROKEN UP
SOIL MIN 12" DEEP
2" SETTLED LAYER OF MULCH
2X WIDTH OF ROOTBALL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
TREE PLANTING
LEGEND
ASH
1/3 TREEHEIGHTROOT CROWN AT
FINISH GRADE,
OR 1-2" ABOVE GRADE
FINISH GRADE
TILLED OR BROKEN UP
SOIL MIN 12" DEEP
2" SETTLED LAYER OF MULCH
2X WIDTH OF ROOTBALL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
TREE PLANTING
LINDEN
MAPLE
A
L
M
ROOT CROWN AT
FINISH GRADE,
OR 1-2" ABOVE GRADE
FINISH GRADE
TILLED OR BROKEN UP
SOIL MIN 12" DEEP
2" SETTLED LAYER OF MULCH
2X WIDTH OF ROOTBALL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
TYP. SHRUB PLANTING
Landscape Planting
Common Name Botanical Name Size
Colorado Blue Spruce Pice a pungens 8'18
Autumn Blaze Maple Acre Freemanii 'Jeffsred'2.5"24
Ash Fraxinus 2.5"18
Linden Tilia 2.5"21
Shrubs 290
St. John's Wort, Low Grow Sumac, Tor Spirea, Hyperion Daylily,
Dwarf Lilac, Or similar
Total 371
NOTES:
* CONIFEROUS TREES STAGGERED WITH 15' SPACING
* DECIDUOUS TREES-20' SPACING
* SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN FRONT OF ALL BLDGS
* THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE
Revised03/02/2020
ROSEMOUNT, MN
For Review
May 6, 2020
Revised05/06/2020
Revised06/18/2020
11'-0"11'-0"11'-7"12'-0"3'-6"FIBER CEMENT
SHAKES SIDING
FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
MASONRY
VINYL SINGLE
HUNG WINDOWS
ASPHALT SHINGLES
FIBER CEMENT BOARD
& BATTEN SIDING
FIBER CEMENT
ROOF EDGE (TYP.)
PRECAST CONC.
SILL
MASONRY
BALCONY DECK
& GUARDRAIL
METAL CANOPYMETAL CANOPY
FIBER CEMENT SHAKES 195 S.F.
ALUM. STORE-
FRONT WINDOWS
ALUM. PERGOLA
PIPE GUARDRAIL, PAINTED
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 109
11'-0"11'-0"11'-7"12'-0"2'-3"FIBER CEMENT
SHAKES SIDING
FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
EARTH BERM
VINYL SINGLE
HUNG WINDOWS
ASPHALT SHINGLES
FIBER CEMENT BOARD
& BATTEN SIDINGFIBER CEMENT
ROOF EDGE (TYP.)
MASONRY
PREFIN.
BALCONY DECK
& GUARDRAIL
MET. LOUVER
MET. GUARD -
PAINTED
FIBER CEMENT
ROOF EDGE -
(TYP.)
MASONRY
RET. WALL
ASPHALT SHINGLES
53'-9"MIDPOINT OF HIGHEST GABLE
12345678109
ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2020-XX-XX -
2. 2020-XX-XX -
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1.DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
SCALE:
FRONT ELEVATION11/8" = 1'-0"
SCALE:
REAR ELEVATION21/8" = 1'-0"
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\ROSEMOUNT-new-Elevations.dwg, 5/15/2020 3:54:11 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
53'-9"PARKING GARAGE11'-0"11'-0"10'-7"12'-0"2'-6"FIBER CEMENT
SHAKES SIDING
PIPE GUARDRAIL
PAINTED
MASONRY
VINYL SINGLE
HUNG WINDOWS
ASPHALT SHINGLES FIBER CEMENT BOARD
& BATTEN SIDING
FIBER CEMENT
ROOF EDGE (TYP.)
PRECAST CONC.
SILL
MASONRY
BALCONY DECK
& GUARDRAIL
METAL CANOPY
ALUM. STORE-
FRONT WINDOWS
ALUM. PORTICO
PAINTED
MIDPOINT OF HIGHEST GABLE
53'-9"PARKING GARAGE 11'-0"11'-0"10'-7"12'-0"2'-6"FIBER CEMENT
SHAKES SIDING
PIPE GUARDRAIL
PAINTED
MASONRY
VINYL SINGLE
HUNG WINDOWS
ASPHALT SHINGLESFIBER CEMENT BOARD
& BATTEN SIDING
FIBER CEMENT
ROOF EDGE (TYP.)
PRECAST CONC.
SILL
MASONRY
BALCONY DECK
& GUARDRAIL
METAL CANOPY
ALUM. STORE-
FRONT WINDOWS
ALUM. PORTICO
PAINTED
MIDPOINT OF HIGHEST GABLE
A B C E F G H JDABCEFGHJD
RIGID INSUL. ON PRECAST
CONC. PLANK
STRUCT. CONC. TOPPING ON
CONC. PLANK TO EXTERIOR WALL
SPAN FLR. MEMBERS THIS DIRECTION
TO AVOID CONCENTRATED LOAD ON EXTER. WALL
SPAN FLR. MEMBERS THIS DIRECTION
FOR CONCENTRATED LOAD ON EXTER. WALL
11'-0"11'-0"10'-6"12'-0"3'-6"do we drop the flr truss
for an exterior deck here?
ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2020-XX-XX -
2. 2020-XX-XX -
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1.DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
SCALE:
SIDE ELEVATION11/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:
SIDE ELEVATION21/8" = 1'-0"
SCALE:
BUILDING SECTION33/16" = 1'-0"
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\ROSEMOUNT-new-Elevations.dwg, 5/15/2020 3:53:34 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
108'-0"76'-4"23'-8"27'-0"
18'-0"9'-0"9'-0"
27'-0"27'-0"27'-0"
9'-0"
27'-0"27'-0"27'-0"
111'-6"
100'-3"9'-10"
21 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
1918
14
20
9'-0"
EXHAUSTINTAKE FAN
WATER/
SPRINK.
9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"16'-0"18'-4"14'-0"12'-8"17'-4"18'-0"27'-0"
UP
8'-0"18'-8"3-08 11 12
15 16 17
13
3-0
MECH.
PARKING GARAGE
3-0 87'-0"10'-8"7'-4"TRASH /
RECYCLING
1-6
3-0
3-0
3-0
6'-8"
COMMERCIAL
1288 S.F. USEABLE INCLUDES RESTROOMS
4-0 3-0
3-0
3-0LOBBY
3-0VESTIBULE 3-03-03-03-0MAIL
OFFICE
3-0 3-011'-0"4'-4"ELECT.EXIT CORRIDOR
A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 109
B
C
E
F
G
H
H
D
111'-6"
1'-2"
1'-2"
1'-0"
7"
7"16'-0"8'-4"
COMPACT
CAR
UP
3-0
3-0 3-0
1'-2"1'-2"1'-0"4'-6"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-0"3'-4"3'-11"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"6'-0"5'-0"6'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"5'-0"2'-8"
M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.M.O.7'-4"11'-0"10'-3"3'-4"M.O.20'-878"10'-8"5"
1'-0"
3'-0"3'-0"
M.O.
3'-0"3'-0"
M.O.
F.D.F.D.
ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2018-12-23 CONCEPT DESIGN
2. 2019-09-13 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
3. 2020-02-20 FACADE DEVELOPMENT
4. 2020-05-13 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1.DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\RWC PLANS MAy 15 2020.dwg, 5/16/2020 2:50:41 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
111'-6"76'-4"33'-10"42'-6"111'-6"
36'-4"23'-5"26'-8"25'-1"
DECK
3-0
UP
3-0
3-010'-8"87'-0"23'-0"23'-0"32'-9"76'-4"33'-10"42'-0"10'-8"87'-0"DECK
3-0
6"
6"
6"6"3-0
A
1 2 4 5 7 109
B
E
F
G
H
H
3-0POCKET DR.FURNACE
GAS F.P.
TV
SHELF & ROD
SHELF & ROD
3-0POCKET DR.FURNACEGAS F.P.TVSHELF & RODSHELF & ROD3-03-0
6"6"
3-0
GAS F.P.
3-0
GAS F.P.
3-0
3-0
3-0
3-0
3-0
GAS F.P.8'-1038"DN3-03-06"6"3-03-032'-9"
UP
DN
R.D.R.D.R.D.R.D.
ALUM. PERGOLAMET. GUARDRAIL
CAST STONE
3-0
DECK DECK
DECKDECK DECKDECKDECKDECKDECKDECK
ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2018-12-23 CONCEPT DESIGN
2. 2019-09-13 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
3. 2020-02-20 FACADE DEVELOPMENT
4. 2020-05-13 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\RWC PLANS MAy 15 2020.dwg, 5/16/2020 4:38:01 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
111'-6"76'-4"33'-10"42'-6"111'-6"
36'-4"23'-5"26'-8"25'-1"
3-0
UP
3-0
3-010'-8"87'-0"23'-0"23'-0"32'-9"76'-4"33'-10"42'-0"10'-8"87'-0"3-0
6"
6"
6"6"3-0
A
1 2 4 5 7 109
B
E
F
G
H
H
3-0POCKET DR.FURNACE
GAS F.P.
TV
SHELF & ROD
SHELF & ROD
3-0POCKET DR.FURNACEGAS F.P.TVSHELF & RODSHELF & ROD3-03-0
6"6"
3-0
GAS F.P.
3-0
GAS F.P.
3-0
3-0
3-0
3-0
3-0
GAS F.P.8'-1038"DN3-03-06"6"3-03-032'-9"
UP
DN
3-0
DECK
DECKDECK DECK
DECKDECK DECKDECK
ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2018-12-23 CONCEPT DESIGN
2. 2019-09-13 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
3. 2020-02-20 FACADE DEVELOPMENT
4. 2020-05-13 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\RWC PLANS MAy 15 2020.dwg, 5/16/2020 2:47:02 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
111'-6"76'-4"33'-10"42'-6"111'-6"
36'-4"23'-5"26'-8"25'-1"
3-0
UP
3-0
3-010'-8"87'-0"23'-0"23'-0"32'-9"76'-4"33'-10"42'-0"10'-8"87'-0"3-0
6"
6"
6"6"3-0
A
1 2 4 5 7 109
B
E
F
G
H
H
3-0POCKET DR.FURNACE
GAS F.P.
TV
SHELF & ROD
SHELF & ROD
3-0POCKET DR.FURNACEGAS F.P.TVSHELF & RODSHELF & ROD3-0
3-0
3-0
3-0
DN3-03-032'-9"
UP
DN
ROOFROOFROOF
3-0
DECKDECK DECKDECK
ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2018-12-23 CONCEPT DESIGN
2. 2019-09-13 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
3. 2020-02-20 FACADE DEVELOPMENT
4. 2020-05-13 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\RWC PLANS MAy 15 2020.dwg, 5/16/2020 4:30:35 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
111'-6"76'-4"33'-10"42'-6"111'-6"
36'-4"23'-5"26'-8"25'-1"
3-0
UP
3-0
3-010'-8"87'-0"23'-0"23'-0"32'-9"76'-4"33'-10"42'-0"10'-8"87'-0"3-0
6"
6"
6"6"3-0
DN
32'-9"
UP
DNSLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.R.D.R.D.R.D.
R.D.
SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.SLOPE DN.
ALUM. PERGOLA
FACE OF WALL BELOW
ROOF EDGE
3-0
ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2018-12-23 CONCEPT DESIGN
2. 2019-09-13 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
3. 2020-02-20 FACADE DEVELOPMENT
4. 2020-05-13 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1.DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\RWC PLANS MAy 15 2020.dwg, 5/16/2020 2:39:24 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
3-0POCKET DR.FURNACEGAS F.P.TV3-03-03-03-0
6"6"
23'-0"
10'-10"12'-2"35'-6"35'-012"36'-10"5'-438"7"6"6"34'-6"32'-3"
9'-81
2"10'-10"11'-81
2"
7'-0"8'-4"2'-8"5'-0"
ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2018-12-23 CONCEPT DESIGN
2. 2019-09-13 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
3. 2020-02-20 FACADE DEVELOPMENT
4. 2020-05-13 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
SCALE:
ENLARGED UNIT PLAN11/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:
ENLARGED UNIT PLAN21/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:
ENLARGED UNIT PLAN31/4" = 1'-0"
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\RWC PLANS MAy 15 2020.dwg, 5/15/2020 3:49:57 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
3-03-06"6"3-0
GAS F.P.
3-0
GAS F.P.
3-0
GAS F.P.8'-1038"ISSUE LOG:
DATE ISSUE
1. 2018-12-23 CONCEPT DESIGN
2. 2019-09-13 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
3. 2020-02-20 FACADE DEVELOPMENT
4. 2020-05-13 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC ADDRESS :
150th St West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dakota County
PID:
34-30900-01-010
34-65202-02-010
RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS150th St West, Rosemount, MNGENERAL NOTES:
1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEE
ASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.
2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.
3. IF APPLICABLE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DWGS. FOR, PAVING PATTERNS, PLANTING PLAN,
SIDEWALK LAYOUTS + NOTES.
4. ALL CONC. SIZES + DIMS TO BE CONFIRMED WITH STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE
DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.
DRAFT
1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2
Minneapolis, MN 55405
AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894
t: 612.616.9472
e: joy@joyarchitecture.com
w: joyarchitecture.com
COPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTIN
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENT
N
KJ Walk Inc.
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
t: 952.226.3200
e: info@kjwalk.com
w: kjwalk.com
SCALE:
ENLARGED UNIT PLAN11/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:
ENLARGED UNIT PLAN21/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:
ENLARGED UNIT PLAN31/4" = 1'-0"
C:\JOY MARTIN ARCHITECTURE\ROSEMOUNT MIXED USE\CD DWGS\RWC PLANS MAy 15 2020.dwg, 5/16/2020 2:59:32 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
LEVEL 1
100' -0"
ROOF TRUSS BEARING
109' -1 1/8"18'-11"9'-1 1/8"28'-0 1/8"1
3
5
2
4
6
7 88888MAIN ENTRY
MATERIAL PERCENTAGES
OVERALL AREA: 1,859 SQ. FT.
STONE AREA: 927 SQ. FT.
LAP SIDING AREA: 932 SQ. FT.EQEQMID POINT GABLE18'-6 5/8"LEVEL 1
100' -0"
ROOF TRUSS BEARING
109' -1 1/8"18'-11"9'-1 1/8"28'-0 1/8"1
3
2
6
7 88888845
MATERIAL PERCENTAGES
OVERALL AREA: 1,421 SQ. FT.
STONE AREA: 760 SQ. FT.
LAP SIDING AREA: 661 SQ. FT.EQEQMID POINT GABLE18'-6 5/8"LEVEL 1
100' -0"
ROOF TRUSS BEARING
109' -1 1/8"9'-1 1/8"18'-11"28'-0 1/8"1
3
5
2
4
6
78888888COURTYARD
MATERIAL PERCENTAGES
OVERALL AREA: 1,653 SQ. FT.
STONE AREA: 848 SQ. FT.
LAP SIDING AREA: 805 SQ. FT.MID POINT GABLE18'-6 5/8"EQEQLEVEL 1
100' -0"
ROOF TRUSS BEARING
109' -1 1/8"9'-1 1/8"18'-11"28'-0 1/8"1
3
5
2
4
6
778PORT COHERE 8 888
MATERIAL PERCENTAGES
OVERALL AREA: 1,421 SQ. FT.
STONE AREA: 760 SQ. FT.
LAP SIDING AREA: 661 SQ. FT.EQEQMID POINT GABLE18'-6 5/8"Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc.
A1.0
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
ROSEMOUNT, MN
RIVERS OF LIFE -
ROSEMOUNT
19-128.00
02/21/20
SITE PLAN REVIEW & PUD
1/8" = 1'-0"D1 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"C1 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"B1 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"A1 EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
1. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
2. PREFINISHED ALUM FASCIA
3. TRIM BOARD (CEMENTITIOUS)
4. LAP SIDING (CEMENTITIOUS)
5. CAST STONE SILL
6. STONE VENEER
7. COMPOSITE WINDOWS
8. ACCENT PIER OR CORNER ELEMENT
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
1. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
2. PREFINISHED ALUM FASCIA
3. TRIM BOARD (CEMENTITIOUS)
4. LAP SIDING (CEMENTITIOUS)
5. CAST STONE SILL
6. STONE VENEER
7. COMPOSITE WINDOWS
8. ACCENT PIER OR CORNER ELEMENT
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
1. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
2. PREFINISHED ALUM FASCIA
3. TRIM BOARD (CEMENTITIOUS)
4. LAP SIDING (CEMENTITIOUS)
5. CAST STONE SILL
6. STONE VENEER
7. COMPOSITE WINDOWS
8. ACCENT PIER OR CORNER ELEMENT
ELEVATION KEY NOTES
1. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
2. PREFINISHED ALUM FASCIA
3. TRIM BOARD (CEMENTITIOUS)
4. LAP SIDING (CEMENTITIOUS)
5. CAST STONE SILL
6. STONE VENEER
7. COMPOSITE WINDOWS
8. ACCENT PIER OR CORNER ELEMENT
BUISNESS PARKWAYȭFor ReviewJune 18, 2020I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me,or under my direct supervision, and that I am aduly registered engineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.Luke Warren Israelson6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.comDate:06/18/20Revision:OriginalLANDSCAPE CROSS SECTIONEXHIBITRegistration #: 51362ROSEWOODCOMMONSROSEMOUNT, MNSHEET 1 of 1Date: 6/18/2020FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised.dwg04080120BUILDING SCALE EXHIBIT
H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18121597\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\2020-06-19_Trip Generation Traffic Memorandum.docx
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 19, 2020
To: Kim Lindquist
Community Development Director
From: Jacob Bongard, P.E., PTOE
Matt Blazer, P.E.
Subject: Traffic Impact Study
Rosewood Center
Introduction
A high-level traffic study was completed to compare two development proposals on a site located in
the City of Rosemount. Vehicular trips generated, access management and roadway capacity were
used to analyze the potential impacts associated with each development.
Review
· The development site is located at the northwest corner of County Road 42 (CSAH 42) and
Business Parkway. The property is currently vacant and zoned C4 for General Commercial.
· CSAH 42 is classified as a principal arterial with a 55 mile per hour speed limit. It is a four-lane
divided roadway with a raised grass median and paved shoulder. CSAH 42 at Business Parkway
is a full intersection with stop controls on the side streets. A left turn lane with approximately
300’ of vehicular storage is present on CSAH 42 for vehicles accessing Business Parkway from
the east.
· Business Parkway is classified as a local roadway. It is a two-lane road with curb, gutter, and
sidewalk. Business Parkway north of the site continues into 148th St which ultimately becomes
Blanca Ave. 148th St and Blanca Ave are residential local roadways. Blanca Ave intersects the
major collector roadway, 145th St.
Calculations
The ITE Trip Generation, 10th edition manuals were used to estimate the trips generated from each
development proposal. A 20% internal-internal reduction during peak and 30% during day was assumed
for the Retail-Big Box, Retail, and Restaurant land uses. Pass-by and diverted link trips were not
calculated with this assessment as the intent is to note the net change of total trips entering/exiting the
site. ITE Land Use Codes that most similarly describe the proposed uses are listed below.
o 932 - High Turnover-Sit Down Restaurant (Restaurant). Trip Generation calculations
based on number of seats.
o 813 - Free Standing Discount Superstore (Retail-Big Box). Trip Generation calculations
based on gross square footage.
o 815 - Free Standing Discount Store (Retail). Trip Generation calculations based on gross
square footage.
o 310 - Hotel (Hotel). Trip Generation calculations based on number of rooms.
o 252 – Senior Adult Housing - Attached (Apartments). Trip Generation calculations based
on number of units.
Original Development Proposal
The Original development proposal was for 173,000 sf big box retail and 20,000 sf retail. The
proposal did not indicate a specific land use for the southern portion of the property. For
comparison purposes 4 retail buildings at 10,000 sf each and a 150-seat restaurant was assumed.
The table below shows the calculated number of vehicle trips for each land use.
Land Use Units AM Peak PM Peak Weekday
Retail – Big Box 173,000 sf 436 610 6,142
Retail 20,000 sf 88 86 744
Retail 40,000 sf 175 172 1,488
Restaurant 150 Seats 72 89 460
Rosewood Center Proposal
The Rosewood Center development proposal was for a mixed-use development. It included a
total of 79 hotel rooms, 140,000 sf big box retail, 28,460 sf retail, 200 age restricted senior
housing apartment units, and 240 restaurant seats. 2 of the buildings contained first floor retail
space with apartment units located above. The table below shows the calculated number of
vehicle trips for each land use.
Land Use Units AM Peak PM Peak Weekday
Hotel 79 Rooms 44 49 662
Retail – Big Box 140,000 sf 353 494 4,970
Retail 28,460 sf 125 122 1,060
Apartments 200 Units 66 62 740
Restaurant 240 Seats 114 141 736
Comparison
Trip generation calculations estimated slightly more trips produced from the Original Plan.
Approximately 10% more trips in the AM and PM peak hour and 8% for a weekday. The table
below shows the total trips for each plan and differences.
Original Plan Rosewood Plan Difference
Total AM Peak 771 702 69
Total PM Peak 957 868 89
Total Weekday 8,834 8,168 666
Access Management
No changes to the existing roadway configuration were proposed on either development plan. Both plans
proposed two access locations from the site to Business Parkway. The Original plan proposed both
locations to provide full vehicular access, spaced approximately 300’ apart. The Rosewood Center plan
proposed one full vehicular access and one right in/right out vehicular access. The southern access
located closest to CSAH 42 is the proposed full access and approximately 450’ north is the proposed right
in/right out. The right in/right out entrance configuration restricts vehicles from turning left from
Business Parkway into the site or from the site to Business Parkway.
Capacity
The most recent traffic count data from the MnDOT for CSAH 42, adjacent to the site is 15,900 (2018)
vehicles per day. Capacity of CSAH 42 is between 26,900 and 32,200 vehicles per day.
Conclusion
The estimated trip generation difference between the Original plan and the Rosewood Center plan is
negligible from a traffic operations perspective.
The right in right out entrance design proposed on the Rosewood Center plan would serve to encourage
vehicles to access the development via the arterial roadway system and minimize the commercial traffic
through the adjacent residential area.
CSAH 42 has capacity to handle the proposed traffic that would be anticipated from either development
proposal. It is anticipated that most of the traffic will exit the site via the south towards CSAH 42.
Additional intersection analysis would be recommended at CSAH 42 and Business Parkway to evaluate
the need for improvements.
6/17/2020Original Development Proposal with Traget and outlotsTotal TripsBig Box Retailcode 813173unit (1000 SF GFA)ITE Code110Pass-byNew TripsAverage Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM3.14544524828326120%2272090%00227209PM4.40762505038138120%3053050%00305305Weekday50.70877250504386438630%307130710%00307130714 Retail storescode 81540,000sq ftPass-byNew TripsAverage Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM5.43217514911110620%89860%008986PM5.33213505010710720%86860%008686Weekday53.12212550501062106230%7447440%00744744Retailcode 81520,000sq ftPass-byNew TripsAverage Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM5.431095149555320%45430%004543PM5.331075050535320%43430%004343Weekday53.121062505053153130%3723720%00372372Restaurantcode 932150seatsPass-byNew Tripsclassified as a high turnover (sit-down) restaurantAverage Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM0.59896040533620%43290%004329PM0.731105248575320%46430%004643Weekday4.37656505032832830%2302300%00230230Total TripsAM771PM957Weekday8834Internal-to-Internal ReductionInternal-to-Internal ReductionInternal-to-Internal ReductionInternal-to-Internal ReductionBolton & Menk, Inc.H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18121597\2_Preliminary\A_Calculations\trip gen calc\06172020-original-Target.xlsx1 of 1
6/19/2020Rosewood Center ProposalApartments -Adult Housingcode 252200Internal-to-Internal ReductionPass-by New TripsAverage Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM0.3366475331350%32350%003235PM0.3162534733290%33300%003330Weekday3.774050503703700%3703700%00370370Hotelcode 31079RoomsInternal-to-Internal Pass-byNew TripsAverage Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM0.5443544623200%24200%002420PM0.6148584228200%28210%002821Weekday8.3666050503303300%3313310%00331331Restaurantscode 932 240 seatsInternal-to-Internal ReductionPass-by New Tripsclassified as a high turnover (sit-down) restaurantAverage Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM0.591426040855720%68460%006846PM0.731755248918420%73680%007368Weekday4.371049505052452430%3683680%00368368Big Box Retailcode 813140unit (1000 SF GFA)ITE Code110Pass-byNew TripsAverage Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM3.14440524822921120%1841690%00184169PM4.40616505030830820%2472470%00247247Weekday50.70709850503549354930%248524850%0024852485Retailcode 81528460SFInternal-to-Internal Pass-byNew Trips`Average Rate#% enter% exitenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingenteringexitingAM5.431555149797620%64610%006461PM5.331525050767620%61610%006161Weekday53.121512505075675630%5305300%00530530Total TripsAM703PM869Weekday8168Internal-to-Internal ReductionBolton & Menk, Inc.H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18121597\2_Preliminary\A_Calculations\trip gen calc\06192020-Rosewood Center.xlsx1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
To: Anthony Nemcek, Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning and Personnel Office Specialist
From: Stephanie Smith, Assistant City Engineer
Date: June 23, 2020
Subject: Rosewood Center Preliminary Plat, PUD and Site Plan –
Engineering Review
SUBMITTAL:
The plans for Rosewood Center have been prepared by JK Walk. Engineering review comments
were generated from the following documents included in the submittal:
▫ Preliminary Plat (dated May 6, 2020)
▫ Site Plan (dated June 5, 2020)
▫ Utility Plan (dated May 6, 2020)
▫ Grading Plan (dated May 6, 2020)
▫ Landscaping Plan (dated May 6, 2020)
▫ Lighting Plan (dated February 20,
2020)
▫ Stormwater Management Report (dated
April 17, 2020)
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. Development fees are required based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees. For
2020 the estimated development fees are listed below:
§ GIS Fee: $10 / parcel
§ Storm Sewer Trunk Charge: $ 6,865 / acre
§ Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge: $ 1,075 / acre
§ Watermain Trunk Charge: $ 6,500 / acre
2. Prior to submittal of the final plat, the developer should notify the city if they would like
to privately design and install the infrastructure or if a public process is desired.
Preparation of the subdivision agreement cannot begin until a public or private process
is selected.
RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:
3. Permits are required for work in Right-of-Way (ROW).
4. The width of Drainage and Utility (D&U) easements over all public utilities shall be
verified during final design.
5. Easements are required over all ponding and infiltration areas, and shall encompass at
minimum the HWL and all naturally vegetated areas. Signage for easements shall be
provided by the developer and an extended maintenance warranty shall be required to
ensure establishment of the naturally vegetated areas.
PRIVATE ROADS AND PARKING LOTS
The applicant has proposed to connect the large development on the western property with a
series of private roads with on-street perpendicular and parallel parking, connecting parking lots
and driveway accesses. Pedestrian walkways are planned throughout.
The City’s consultant, Bolton Menk, Inc, performed a traffic analysis to evaluate the change in
site configuration from an original proposal year prior that was more commercial, including “big
box”, to the proposed configuration that includes less commercial and more residential. The
analysis concludes that the current proposal is anticipated to generate less traffic than the
original proposal. The memorandum is included as an attachment in the full staff report.
The applicant has submitted multiple iterations of the parking lot/drive aisle configuration to
address staff comments. The most recent site plan is dated June 5, 2020, which incorporated
diagonal parking and a southeast parking lot with access onto the site’s internal drive. This plan
also incorporates a restriction on left turns at the northern intersection to discourage traffic
turning into the adjacent neighborhood streets.
6. Roads shall be privately owned and maintained by the Rosewood Crossing
Homeowner’s Association (HOA).
7. Staff recommends road slopes to be a minimum of 1% slope at centerline.
8. 50’ minimum intersection radius shall be used on nonresidential streets.
9. The Rivers of Life parking lot includes a cul-de-sac turnaround. The radius must be 45
feet to face of curb.
10. MnDOT pedestrian ramp standard detail plates shall be included in the plan set for
compliance with ADA standards.
11. The applicant shall submit a signage plan for review. Type-three barricades shall be
placed on all dead-end streets.
12. The street lighting plan shall be revised to comply with City standards, to include street
lights at all intersections.
13. Shall update all engineering plans to be consistent with the June 5th, 2020 site plan
update.
WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER
The applicant proposes to connect to City watermain at Brenner Court and City sanitary sewer
at 149th Street West. Services for the memory care facility are provide to the property line from
149th Street West.
14. Dead-end lines shall be minimized by looping all mains where practical. Plans shall show
a ghost alignment for watermain through the larger site so staff can verify adequate loop
connections, rather than long dead ends. Additional connections may be required.
15. 12” watermain is required for commercial areas.
16. Plan shall specify watermain material as ductile iron pipe (DIP) per the Engineering
Design Guidelines.
17. Connections to existing watermain shall be valved.
18. Hydrant spacing and locations shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall. Typical
requirements in commercial and multi-family areas is 300 feet.
19. Staff recommends use of 0.50% slope for sanitary main, so the constructed slope can be
plus or minus and still meet the required minimum.
20. The water and sanitary main lines shall be owned and maintained by the City.
21. The water and sanitary sewer construction plans shall be designed consistent with City of
Rosemount Engineering Guidelines and Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
STORMWATER
Stormwater management basins on this property have been constructed as part of previous
approvals and surrounding development.
22. Additional spot elevation points shall be added to the grading plan to verify the drainage
arrow and the flow of stormwater away from the proposed building pads.
23. Private stormwater facilities shall be owned and maintained by the Rosewood Commons
HOA. The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Management Agreement with the City
to be recorded against the property. The agreement shall detail the applicant’s inspection
and maintenance responsibilities for private stormwater BMPs.
24. Upon completion of construction, the applicant’s engineer shall submit infiltrometer
testing to certify the functionality of the basins as modeled.
WSB Engineering reviewed the Rosewood Center plans on behalf of the City. The full
memorandum, dated May 19, 2020, is included as an attachment. The recommendations are
below:
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Comments on Plan Set
1. General
a. An NPDES permit will be required prior to the start of construction.
b. Include SWPPP in plan set.
c. City of Rosemount requires a minimum pipe diameter of 15”. Refine storm
sewer on page 3 appropriately. See callouts on page 3 for locations of 12” pipes
that need to be upsized.
d. Structure inverts, rims, sump elevations, pipe sizes, etc. should be shown on page
3. Include details for existing storm sewer and structures within and adjacent to
property. Include additional storm sewer page, if necessary, to avoid overly busy
page.
e. Inlets required every 300’ on streets to prevent runoff from flowing through
intersections. Inlets should be located such that 3 cfs is max flow at the inlet for
10-year design and does not exceed applicable spread design for road. See
callouts on page 3 for locations that exceed 300’ between storm sewer inlets.
2. Ponds and Wetlands
a. Show 100-year design drainage boundaries for Ponds B, D on page 3.
b. Show acreage of each drainage area/watershed to Ponds B,D on page 3.
c. Show/define access routes for maintenance purposes to all manholes, inlets,
and/or outlets at ponding areas that are outside of public ROW on page 3. See
Section 6, Grading, in the City of Rosemount Engineer Guidelines for more
detail on the construction requirements of these access routes.
d. Reference city standard details for FES and riprap aprons to be installed on Pond
B, Pond D.
a. City standard regional OCS needs to be shown or added to Pond B. An outlet
control structure from Pond B should be used as the outlet from the basin in line
with the City Engineering Guidelines. The outlet structure should connect into
the existing storm sewer once surveyed.
e. Show existing outlet north of site near 18” storm sewer pipe that crosses site and
outlets into Pond B. See page 3 for callout.
3. Emergency Overflow Routes:
a. Show EOF routes. All EOF routes need to be encompassed by a drainage/utility
easement. Overland EOF routes shall be provided for all basins in addition to
the normal pipe outlet. Show EOF routes from all low points and show high
point elevation along EOF routes and the directional flow arrows. Show EOF
route typical section with bottom width and side slopes. If a pipe is installed to
provide an EOF, label it as EOF
4. Retaining Walls:
a. No comments.
5. Erosion Control:
a. A separate erosion control plan is required that will accompany grading plan. See
Section 5, Erosion Control, of the City of Rosemount Engineering Guidelines
for more information on requirements.
6. Grading:
a. Label contours in Pond D on page 3. If possible, include entire ponding area on
page.
b. Include spot elevation for parking lot curb grading to clearly show all curb to
drain to catch basins.
c. Maintain 1.5 to 1 slope setback from commercial buildings to storm sewer
throughout project site.
Stormwater Management Plan:
1. Site Regional Ponding Design Review:
Five alternatives were analyzed to develop the commercial properties shown in red
below. All options included expanding storage in Basin C as shown on the grading plan.
Option 1: Add an additional culvert connecting Pond D to Pond 1990.
Option 2: Create additional storage in Pond 1990.
Option 3: Add an additional culvert connecting Pond D to Pond 1990 and also
create additional storage in Pond 1990.
Option 4: Create additional storage in Pond D.
Option 5: Create additional storage in Pond B.
Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 were modeled using HydroCAD. Based upon the proposed
building and impervious located adjacent to Pond B, there is no additional storage in
Pond B without affecting the proposed building layout. Therefore, Option 5 was not
evaluated. Table 2 summarizes the existing and proposed models considered for this
site. The high water level (HWL) of Pond B, C, D, and 1990 is summarized, as well as
the piped discharge from Pond D and the roadway discharge from Pond D.
Table 2: Existing and Proposed Models Summary
Description Existing
Proposed
1 -
Additional
Culvert to
1990 from
Pond D
Proposed
2 -
Additional
Storage in
1990
Proposed
3 - 1 & 2
Combined
Proposed
4 -
Additional
Storage in
Pond D
HWL of Pond B (FT) 945.74 947.25 947.25 947.25 947.25
HWL of Pond C (FT) 944.77 944.86 945.81 943.08 945.20
Pipe Discharge from D to Pond 1990 (CFS) 73.07 89.00 70.87 90.06 59.11
HWL of Pond D (FT) 946.95 945.73 947.25 945.60 945.22
HWL of Pond 1990 (FT) 937.75 938.19 937.76 934.85 938.00
Recommendation
Options 1-3 require offsite adjustments to ponding areas and/or installing a culvert
across Highway 42. To minimize impacts and cost, Option 4 (expanding Pond C& D
storage) is recommended. This will minimize impacts to parcels within this storm sewer
system and avoid disturbing Highway 42.
2. General Storm Sewer Design
a. Label all storm sewer as public or private. All storm sewer within the ROW or
trunk conveyances shall be public owned and maintained.
b. Include drainage area maps showing existing and proposed conditions.
c. Include catch basin drainage area map and pipe size calculations.
d. Model C should show storm events as defined in the City of Rosemount’s
Engineering Guidelines, Section 2.f.:
i. 2-year
ii. 10-year
iii. 100-year
iv. 10-day snowmelt
e. Proposed drainage calculations should incorporate stormwater analysis of the
future development to the west (40-unit apartments, Outlot A, Outlot E) and be
sized for future impervious areas. Include analysis and narrative of these
calculations in stormwater report.
f. Adjust trunk connection near Outlot A. See callout on page 3 of plan set.
g. Show building roof leader connections to storm sewer throughout entire project
site.
3. Water Quantity
a. See supplemental review information from 2017 modeling related to regional
basin storage requirements.
4. Rate/Volume Control
a. Infiltration cannot be used in the HydroCAD modeling when determining
HWLs.
b. Infiltration surface area needs to be calculated using the rule 1/12 ac-ft/ac of
drainage area / day.
Required infiltration surface area = or
c. Note: The City only allows the use of 3/in hr. maximum if supported by a
recommendation from the geotechnical report. Appendix B shows steady state
infiltration rates of 24.0 in/hr. and 70.8 in/hr. Refine numbers under 3.2
Stormwater Quality accordingly.
d. Infiltrometer tests usually occur at bottom of pond. Verify soil borings have been
completed to ensure infiltration conditions extend deep into soil.
e. Include summary table for onsite and offsite runoff to each Pond in the
stormwater report in existing and proposed conditions.
5. Freeboard
a. Include freeboard analysis (See City of Rosemount Engineering Guidelines,
Section 2.k.i-iii.)
b. Include basement floor elevations analysis (Section 2.l.i-iii.)
6. Water Quality
a. Include NWL of each pond in summary Table 1. Include alphabetical letter ID’s
of Ponds (ex. 2474 is also Pond E)
b. Include NURP analysis (see Section 3.a.i-viii.)
7. Easements
a. Provide D&U Easement over all storm sewer.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me
at 651-322-2015.
Attachment:
WSB Memorandum Re: Rosewood Commons Plan Review, dated 5/19/2020
G:\2020\Planning Cases\20-30-PUD KJ Walk- Rosewood Commons Planned Unit Development\20200519 Rosemount Stormwater Review Memo Rosewood
Commons 05_19_20.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum
To: Stephanie Smith, City of Rosemount
From: Bill Alms, PE
Lauren Wheeler, EIT
Date: May 19, 2020
Re: Rosewood Commons Plan Review
WSB Project No. 015411-000
I have reviewed the documents provided by KJwalk on 4/22/20 for the Rosewood Commons
development project Documents reviewed include:
• Stormwater Management Plan, Rosewood. Origin Date: April 17, 2020. Author: KJwalk
• Rosewood Commons Plan Set. Origin Date: May 6, 2020. Author: KJwalk
Applicant should provide responses to each comment. I offer the following comments below.
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Comments on Plan Set
1. General
a. An NPDES permit will be required prior to the start of construction.
b. Include SWPPP in plan set.
c. City of Rosemount requires a minimum pipe diameter of 15”. Refine storm sewer
on page 3 appropriately. See callouts on page 3 for locations of 12” pipes that
need to be upsized.
d. Structure inverts, rims, sump elevations, pipe sizes, etc. should be shown on
page 3. Include details for existing storm sewer and structures within and
adjacent to property. Include additional storm sewer page, if necessary, to avoid
overly busy page.
e. Inlets required every 300’ on streets to prevent runoff from flowing through
intersections. Inlets should be located such that 3 cfs is max flow at the inlet for
10-year design and does not exceed applicable spread design for road. See
callouts on page 3 for locations that exceed 300’ between storm sewer inlets.
2. Ponds and Wetlands
a. Show 100-year design drainage boundaries for Ponds B, D on page 3.
b. Show acreage of each drainage area/watershed to Ponds B,D on page 3.
c. Show/define access routes for maintenance purposes to all manholes, inlets,
and/or outlets at ponding areas that are outside of public ROW on page 3. See
Section 6, Grading, in the City of Rosemount Engineer Guidelines for more detail
on the construction requirements of these access routes.
d. Reference city standard details for FES and riprap aprons to be installed on Pond
B, Pond D.
Stephanie Smith
June 19, 2020
Page 2
G:\2020\Planning Cases\20-30-PUD KJ Walk- Rosewood Commons Planned Unit Development\20200519 Rosemount Stormwater Review Memo Rosewood
Commons 05_19_20.docx
a. City standard regional OCS needs to be shown or added to Pond B. An outlet
control structure from Pond B should be used as the outlet from the basin in line
with the City Engineering Guidelines. The outlet structure should connect into the
existing storm sewer once surveyed.
e. Show existing outlet north of site near 18” storm sewer pipe that crosses site and
outlets into Pond B. See page 3 for callout.
3. Emergency Overflow Routes:
a. Show EOF routes. All EOF routes need to be encompassed by a drainage/utility
easement. Overland EOF routes shall be provided for all basins in addition to the
normal pipe outlet. Show EOF routes from all low points and show high point
elevation along EOF routes and the directional flow arrows. Show EOF route
typical section with bottom width and side slopes. If a pipe is installed to provide
an EOF, label it as EOF
4. Retaining Walls:
a. No comments.
5. Erosion Control:
a. A separate erosion control plan is required that will accompany grading plan. See
Section 5, Erosion Control, of the City of Rosemount Engineering Guidelines for
more information on requirements.
6. Grading:
a. Label contours in Pond D on page 3. If possible, include entire ponding area on
page.
b. Include spot elevation for parking lot curb grading to clearly show all curb to drain
to catch basins.
c. Maintain 1.5 to 1 slope setback from commercial buildings to storm sewer
throughout project site.
Stormwater Management Plan:
1. Site Regional Ponding Design Review:
Five alternatives were analyzed to develop the commercial properties shown in red
below. All options included expanding storage in Basin C as shown on the grading plan.
Option 1: Add an additional culvert connecting Pond D to Pond 1990.
Option 2: Create additional storage in Pond 1990.
Option 3: Add an additional culvert connecting Pond D to Pond 1990 and also
create additional storage in Pond 1990.
Option 4: Create additional storage in Pond D.
Option 5: Create additional storage in Pond B.
Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 were modeled using HydroCAD. Based upon the proposed building
and impervious located adjacent to Pond B, there is no additional storage in Pond B
without affecting the proposed building layout. Therefore, Option 5 was not evaluated.
Table 2 summarizes the existing and proposed models considered for this site. The high
water level (HWL) of Pond B, C, D, and 1990 is summarized, as well as the piped
discharge from Pond D and the roadway discharge from Pond D.
Stephanie Smith
June 19, 2020
Page 3
G:\2020\Planning Cases\20-30-PUD KJ Walk- Rosewood Commons Planned Unit Development\20200519 Rosemount Stormwater Review Memo Rosewood
Commons 05_19_20.docx
Table 2: Existing and Proposed Models Summary
Description Existing
Proposed 1 -
Additional
Culvert to
1990 from
Pond D
Proposed 2
- Additional
Storage in
1990
Proposed 3
- 1 & 2
Combined
Proposed 4 -
Additional
Storage in
Pond D
HWL of Pond B (FT) 945.74 947.25 947.25 947.25 947.25
HWL of Pond C (FT) 944.77 944.86 945.81 943.08 945.20
Pipe Discharge from D
to Pond 1990 (CFS) 73.07 89.00 70.87 90.06 59.11
HWL of Pond D (FT) 946.95 945.73 947.25 945.60 945.22
HWL of Pond 1990 (FT) 937.75 938.19 937.76 934.85 938.00
Recommendation
Options 1-3 require offsite adjustments to ponding areas and/or installing a culvert across
Highway 42. To minimize impacts and cost, Option 4 (expanding Pond C& D storage) is
recommended. This will minimize impacts to parcels within this storm sewer system and
avoid disturbing Highway 42.
2. General Storm Sewer Design
a. Label all storm sewer as public or private. All storm sewer within the ROW or
trunk conveyances shall be public owned and maintained.
b. Include drainage area maps showing existing and proposed conditions.
c. Include catch basin drainage area map and pipe size calculations.
d. Model C should show storm events as defined in the City of Rosemount’s
Engineering Guidelines, Section 2.f.:
i. 2-year
ii. 10-year
iii. 100-year
iv. 10-day snowmelt
Stephanie Smith
June 19, 2020
Page 4
G:\2020\Planning Cases\20-30-PUD KJ Walk- Rosewood Commons Planned Unit Development\20200519 Rosemount Stormwater Review Memo Rosewood
Commons 05_19_20.docx
e. Proposed drainage calculations should incorporate stormwater analysis of the
future development to the west (40-unit apartments, Outlot A, Outlot E) and be
sized for future impervious areas. Include analysis and narrative of these
calculations in stormwater report.
f. Adjust trunk connection near Outlot A. See callout on page 3 of plan set.
g. Show building roof leader connections to storm sewer throughout entire project
site.
3. Water Quantity
a. See supplemental review information from 2017 m odeling related to regional
basin storage requirements.
4. Rate/Volume Control
a. Infiltration cannot be used in the HydroCAD modeling when determining HWLs.
b. Infiltration surface area needs to be calculated using the rule 1/12 ac-ft/ac of
drainage area / day.
Required infiltration surface area = [1/12 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠/𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑] ∗[𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠][𝐷𝐷𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐼𝐼𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝐼𝐼 𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑎𝑎 𝑠𝑠𝐷𝐷/ℎ𝑎𝑎]∗[1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/ 12𝑠𝑠𝐷𝐷]∗[24ℎ𝑎𝑎/𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑] or 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (𝐵𝐵𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐵𝐵) 𝐼𝐼𝐵𝐵𝐼𝐼𝐵𝐵𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎𝐵𝐵𝐼𝐼𝐵𝐵𝐼𝐼𝐵𝐵 𝑎𝑎𝐵𝐵𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎 (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵/ℎ𝑎𝑎)∗ 0.0416 (𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐵𝐵𝑐𝑐.𝐼𝐼𝐵𝐵𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎)
c. Note: The City only allows the use of 3/in hr. maximum if supported by a
recommendation from the geotechnical report. Appendix B shows steady state
infiltration rates of 24.0 in/hr. and 70.8 in/hr. Refine numbers under 3.2
Stormwater Quality accordingly.
d. Infiltrometer tests usually occur at bottom of pond. Verify soil borings have been
completed to ensure infiltration conditions extend deep into soil.
e. Include summary table for onsite and offsite runoff to each Pond in the
stormwater report in existing and proposed conditions.
5. Freeboard
a. Include freeboard analysis (See City of Rosemount Engineering Guidelines,
Section 2.k.i-iii.)
b. Include basement floor elevations analysis (Section 2.l.i-iii.)
6. Water Quality
a. Include NWL of each pond in summary Table 1. Include alphabetical letter ID’s of
Ponds (ex. 2474 is also Pond E)
b. Include NURP analysis (see Section 3.a.i-viii.)
7. Easements
a. Provide D&U Easement over all storm sewer.
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
Anthony Nemcek, Planner
From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director
Date: May 21, 2020
Subject: Rosemount Commons
The Parks and Recreation Department recently reviewed the plans for the Rosemount Commons
development. After reviewing the plans, the Parks and Recreation Department staff has the
following comments:
Parks Dedication
The Parks Master Plan does not call for a public park in the location of this development. Staff is
recommending that the City collect cash in-lieu of land for the Rosemount Commons development.
The parks dedication requirement for a commercial development is either a 10% of the total parcel,
a cash dedication or combination of the two. Staff is recommending that a cash dedication be
collected in the amount of $7,461.00 (10% of .829 acres x $ 90,000 per acre).
The parks dedication requirement for high density residential development is either a land
dedication, a cash dedication or a combination of the two. For the 154 high density residential units
in the development, staff is recommending that a cash dedication be collected in the amount of
$385,000 ($2,500 per unit x 154 units).
Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo.
MEMORANDUM
To: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
From: Rick Chase, Building Official/Fire Marshal
Date: January 7, 2020
Subject: Rosewood Commons Hotel & Apartments
The following comments are provided based on the 2020 Minnesota State Fire
Code and site plan dated May 6, 2020.
• Additional fire hydrants will be required in accordance with 507 contact
Fire Marshal for locations.
• Add turn radius for City ladder truck (Commander) to site plan.
• No parking fire lane signage will be required main entrance area of the
hotel.
• Vertical clearance for hotel canopy 13’ 6” minimum per 503.2.1.
• Evacuation diagram in accordance with 403.10.1 for the hotel.
• Premise identification in accordance with 505.
• Installation of a Knox box in accordance with 506.
Sincerely,
Rick Chase
Building Official/Fire Marshal
TRUCK NAME Rosemount
Wheel Base:257 in.
Tire Size:425
Bumper Extension:28 in.
OUTSIDE CURB TO CURB TURNING RADIUS
Input wheelbase?257 in.
Input front wheel INSIDE turn angle?46 degrees
Input offset from kingpin to outside of wheel 16
Turn radius is 37.40 ft.
WALL TO WALL TURNING RADIUS
Input wheelbase?257 in.
Input length of extension?28 in.
Input width of extension?101 in.
Input front wheel INSIDE turn angle?46 degrees
Input radius at front corner?12
Turn radius is 42.07 ft.
Dakota County Surveyor’s Office
Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124
952.891 -7087 Fax 952.891 -7127 www.co.dakota.mn.us
June 1, 2020
City of Rosemount
2875 – 145th St. West
Rosemount, MN 55068-4997
Re: ROSEWOOD COMMONS
The Dakota County Plat Commission met on May 27, 2020, to consider the preliminary plat of the above
referenced plat. The plat is adjacent to CSAH 42 and is therefore subject to the Dakota County
Contiguous Plat Ordinance.
The property is a replat of ROSEWOOD ESTATES. The right-of-way needs along CSAH 42 are 100 feet of
half right of way. The existing half right of way is 75 feet; therefore, the plat needs to dedicate an
additional 25 feet of right of way along CSAH 42, which is shown on the plat.
Access to the site off CSAH 42 is at the existing Business Parkway intersection, located approximately
1,450 feet east of Highway 3 and approximately 1,600 feet west of Biscayne Avenue. Business Parkway
is currently operating as a full intersection; however, CSAH 42 Study identified this as a ¾-access
intersection in the future. There are no current plans to construct or change the intersection to a ¾-
access. The ¾-access would most likely be constructed at the same time the Biscayne Avenue/CSAH 42
intersection is reconstructed. However, the ¾-access would also be built if there are safety concerns at
the Business Parkway/CSAH 42 intersection. Restricted access should be shown along CSAH 42 per the
underlying plat of ROSEWOOD ESTATES.
The Plat Commission has approved the preliminary and final plat, provided that the described conditions
are met, and will recommend approval to the County Board of Commissioners.
Traffic volumes on CSAH 42 are 14,900 ADT and are anticipated to be 27,000 ADT by the year 2030.
These traffic volumes indicate that current Minnesota noise standards for residential units could be
exceeded for the proposed plat. Residential developments along County highways commonly result in
noise complaints. In order for noise levels from the highway to meet acceptable levels for adjacent
residential units, substantial building setbacks, buffer areas, and other noise mitigation elements should
be incorporated into this development.
No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County
Transportation Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County
Recorder’s Office. The Plat Commission does not review or approve the actual engineering design of
proposed accesses or other improvements to be made in the right of way. Nothing herein is intended to
restrict or limit Dakota County’s rights with regards to Dakota County rights of way or property. The Plat
Commission highly recommends early contact with the Transportation Department to discuss the
permitting process which reviews the design and may require construction of highway improvements,
including, but not limited to, turn lanes, drainage features, limitations on intersecting street widths,
medians, etc.
Please contact Gordon McConnell regarding permitting questions at (952) 891-7115 or Todd Tollefson
regarding Plat Commission or Plat Ordinance questions at (952) 891-7070.
Sincerely,
Todd B. Tollefson
Secretary, Plat Commission
c:
From: Jean Brown <jeana1019@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:22 AM
To: Comment <Comment@ci.rosemount.mn.us>
Subject: KJ Walk Proposed project
Concerning Hotel, Apartments with commercial
I live at 14879 Brenner Ct.
According to the proposed plan for the project, the entrance/exit into the apartments between building
number 4 and 5 is off Business Parkway directly accross from my backyard . That would be a very
undesirable location for the entrance for the residents living nearby. It seems like a better choice would
be closer to Hwy 42 off Business Parkway and not up by the existing residential area..
I am wondering what kind of landscaping would be proposed along Business Parkway? It says "green
space". Does that mean just grass, high fencing, mature trees etc.?
Jean and Mike Brown
14879 Brenner Ct
651 322 1382
Sent from my iPad