The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.a. Request by KJ Walk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning Commission Meeting: September 22, 2020 Tentative City Council Meeting: October 6, 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 and senior living mixed use development. AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a. ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map; Land Use Amendment Map; Rezoning Map; Updated Preliminary Site Development Plans: Cover Sheet, Preliminary Plat, Grading and Erosion Control, Utilities, Hotel and Apartment Site, Landscape Plan; Updated Architectural Plans – Senior Living Mixed Use (4); Architectural Plans – Hotel (5); Lighting Plan; Rosewood Center Overall Concept; Traffic Impact Study (8-17-20) , Revised City Engineer Review Memo (with WSB Storm Water Memo); Building Official Review; Public Works Review; Plat Commission Review; Public Comment Letters (4) 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) Master Development Plan with rezoning to HDR-PUD and C4-PUD for four senior 2 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 50 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 or designated owner of Lot 8, Block 1 to 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 apartments may be lap or shake siding. g. The landscape plan shall be revised to add 19 additional trees, provide a mix of evergreen and overstory deciduous trees along Business Parkway, replace Colorado Blue Spruce with an alternate evergreen tree approved by the City, and provide calculations for landscaping within parking areas. Plantings on the east side of the senior buildings should be shifted so some are located on the raised berm against the buildings so the trees are installed at varying heights. h. Incorporation of recommendations from the City Engineer in a review memorandum dated September 22, 2020 relative to drainage, grading, easements, utilities, storm water management, and other subjects covered in the review. i. Payment of all required area and connection charges consistent with the Engineering memo. j. Reimbursement of all City expenses associated with the preparation of traffic studies concerning the development. 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. m. Further development of any future project phases within the remaining undeveloped portions of Rosewood Estates outside of the PUD project area shall require the completion of a traffic study. Depending on the results of the traffic study, the City may require the construction of improvements to the roadways adjacent to and within the development area (and coordination with Dakota County on said improvements) including, but not limited to the installation of traffic signals at the Biscayne Avenue and County Highway 42 intersection and reconfiguration of the Business Parkway and County 42 intersection as a ¾ access intersection consistent with the Dakota County access management plan for Highway 42. 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 3 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 September 22, 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. SUMMARY The Planning Commission is being asked to continue its discussion concerning several land use requests from KJ Walk, Inc. associated with development plans for a hotel and senior apartments with some ground-floor commercial, along Business Parkway, north of 150th Street West (County Highway 42). The land use application originally included a memory care facility, but the applicant has formally withdrawn the memory care facility from the request, and it is no longer included with any of the site development plans. The Commission last reviewed the application at its June 23, 2020 meeting, and after receiving public testimony regarding the proposed development decided to continue its discussion to a future meeting. The public hearing was closed in June, although the Commission can decide to take additional public comment given some of the plans have changed. Since the June meeting, the applicant has modified the site plans and architectural drawings for the project and the updated plans are attached to this report. Because it has been several months since the proposal was last reviewed by the Commission, staff is also attaching the full staff report and review from the previous meeting. Please note that the previous report includes a section concerning the withdrawn memory care facility; the other sections are still relevant for background information about the project. The City also worked with its traffic consultant after the June Planning Commission meeting to prepare a more detailed traffic study for the proposed development with a focus on the expected impacts to the surrounding road network. The revised study is included with the updated meeting materials. Based on the updated application information, staff is recommending approval of the PUD Master Development and Final Development plans for a 79-unit hotel complex and 124 units of senior housing in six individual buildings, two of which would have ground-level retail. 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: 9.97 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 Residential Units: 124 Gross Density (Res): 22.5 Units/Acre Net Density (Res): 22.5 Units/Acre 4 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 maximum (45’ 1” eastern side) Senior Apartments 40’ Hotel PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – 6/23/20 Because of restrictions on public meetings put in place by the State of Minnesota to address the COVID- 19 situation, the Commission conducted an online meeting and public hearing concerning the microbrewery request on June 23, 2020. Several members of the public addressed the Commission during the meeting or submitted written comments in advance of the meeting. A brief summary of this feedback is summarized as follows: Andy Dosdall, 14803 Blanca Ave ., discussed potential impacts, including noise, from the hotel on the surrounding neighborhood Kevin DeWolfe, 2662 148th St. W., expressed concern about traffic from the development and impacts from trains being stopped at the State Highway 3 and County Highway 42 crossing for long periods of time. He also questioned how traffic will maneuver around the site and noted that visibility is a problem where 148th Street turns in to Business Parkway. Wayne Sisel, 14883 Brenner Court, asked if it would be possible to construct a berm with a tree line between the development and existing residential neighborhood. William and Maria Mojica, 2717 148th St. W., asked if a fence could be installed to help buffer the proposed apartment buildings from the adjacent neighborhood. Mike and Genesee Rasmussen, 2729 148 th St. W. (letter), expressed their concerns about the development, and specifically the potential for an increase in vehicle traffic, foot traffic, and noise levels associated with commercial development. They also commented about poor visibility at the curve along 148th Street, and the loss of privacy with the construction of taller buildings. They suggested that the City enact a maximum height of two stories for the property with requirements for screening of the adjacent residential area, and asked that the Planning Commission consider ways to reduce traffic on 148th Street and to minimize noise levels from the site. Jean and Mike Brown, 14879 Brenner Ct. (two letters), stated their opposition to the planned northern entrance into the subject property, noting that the proposed entrance would be directly across from their backyard. They requested that additional screening be added along the border of their property Shelley Passeri, 2705 148th St. W. (letter), stated her concerns about increases in traffic through the adjacent residential neighborhood, the height of the proposed buildings, and the loss of privacy for residents in the neighborhood. She also described seeing large amounts of traffic cutting through the residential area when trains back up traffic on Highway 42 5 The Commission discussed several aspects of the project, including the history of the zoning for the site, the proposed road network and access management plan, the landscaping and buffering plan, and the overall design and layout of the development as it relates to the adjoining residential neighborhood. The Commission generally expressed support for the project but indicated that the developer should address some of the outstanding issues raised during the public hearing. Commissioners specifically directed the applicant to update the landscape plan to bring it into conformance with the zoning ordinance, revise all development plans to reflect the parking and driveway layout for the hotel area, provide additional information concerning the visual impact of the apartment buildings, and to consider other comments expressed during the meeting. The Commission ultimately voted to continue its review to a future meeting. In response to the Planning Commission action, the developer agreed to meet with several of the near-by neighbors on August 13, 2020 immediately across from the project site. At this meeting, the developer reviewed the proposed building design and layout, noting that the additional height was needed to help make a more appealing and unique building. The design also allowed the buildings to incorporate more open space into the project compared to a typical three-story apartment building in which all the units are housed in one longer, wider structure. The developer stated that he could make some modifications to the design, but that these changes may not produce a higher-quality development. He suggested raising the elevation of the ground around each building in order to minimize the building height relative to the adjacent ground. He also agreed to add many more trees to the plan to help buffer and screen the adjacent neighborhood and noted that planting trees on the raised ground elevation would help screen more of the building. Subsequent to the neighborhood meeting, the developer submitted a complete set of revised plans that raises the ground elevation around each of the senior apartment buildings along Business Parkway and adds substantially more landscaping in the area between the development site and adjacent residential neighborhood. The plans also incorporate all previous changes to the hotel parcel and nearby parking and driveway areas that were previously left out of the earlier plan sheets. Staff also requested that the City’s traffic engineer provide a more detailed traffic study for the project that incorporates traffic counts compiled by the public works department in the middle of July for most of the surrounding streets. The revised plans and updated traffic study are included as attachments to this report and are discussed in further detail below. REVISED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS The applicant has submitted a complete set of updated site and development plans that now include the changes made prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the grading and landscaping revisions made after the neighborhood meeting. The most significant change to the plans concerns the proposed grading around the senior apartment buildings along Business Parkway in the eastern portion of the subject property. The previous plans maintained a relatively level grade from the street around each building, with the parking garage and access to the garage at the same level. The plans have now been revised to build up the area around two sides of each building to reduce the apparent height of each structure. This results in a slope up to each building from the street that rises between six to ten feet higher than the street elevation. The slope wraps around each building so that the parking garage on the first level is now partially built into the constructed hillside. The other two sides of each building will stay at the street elevation to allow access to the parking garage and either on-street or surface parking next to the building. 6 Taking a closer look at the proposed grading, the measured building height will change because the average grade around each building is now a little higher. Using the midpoint of the new grade around each building, which is half of 8 feet 8 inches, the overall building height as calculated under the zoning ordinance is now 49 feet 5 inches. This represents a decrease from the building height of 53 feet 9 inches under the previous building plans. Please keep in mind that the net overall effective height of the building has not changed, especially as viewed from off-site. Put another way, the buildings themselves have not been raised or lowered relative to the previous plans, only the ground around each has been built up from the adjacent street grade. Overall, the buildings should appear to be somewhat shorter when viewed from certain sides, and any trees closer to the apartment buildings will be planted at a higher elevation than any surrounding property (and therefore screen more of the building). The landscape plans for the project have also been updated and are now consistent with all previous plan revisions. Most notably, the applicant has added substantially more trees to the plan to bring it closer to conformance with the City’s landscaping requirements. Most of these additional trees will be planted along the Business Parkway corridor, providing screening between the residential area to the east and the proposed senior apartment buildings. Trees have also been added along the northern property line and in between the apartment buildings in the common open space areas. As noted earlier in this report, some of the trees will be planted on the newly created slope along the eastern edge of the project area, which will help the trees screen more of the vertical elevation of the buildings when fully grown. The updated landscape plans represent a substantial improvement from the last version seen by the Planning Commission and bring the project much closer to full compliance with the City’s standards. There are few areas, that still need attention as follows: • The developer performed the commercial district landscape calculations based on the hotel parcel only, and not the entire commercial land around the hotel. To fully comply with the landscape ordinance, all hotel property (including parking areas) should be used for this calculation. Staff estimated the entire hotel site is 90,000 square feet in area, which would require 30 trees instead of the 10 proposed by the applicant. The total number of required trees will therefore be 154, or 19 more than shown on the landscape plan. • The landscape plan should include calculations for the parking areas. The plans do show landscape islands and perimeter planting areas, so the developer should be able to meet the ordinance standards (5% of the parking area must be landscaped with 1 tree for every 250 square feet of landscape area). • Staff would like to see a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees along Business Parkway and the species of proposed trees must adhere to the City’s planting guidelines. At the previous meeting, the Planning Commission noted that Colorado Blue Spruce are no longer recommended for planting in Minnesota. Overall, the updated landscaping plans are much more consistent with the City’s zoning regulations, and address the request for more screening expressed by both the Planning Commission and neighboring property owners. No fencing is proposed on the project site, and the developer had stated that it should not be necessary with the proposed grading and landscaping improvements. 7 In conjunction with the revised site plans, the applicant has also provided updated architectural renderings for the senior living apartment/mixed use buildings. The overall design remains very similar to the plans submitted for the previous meeting, but now include changes to the adjacent grade on two sides of each building. In addition, the plans include full calculations of the proposed building materials to demonstrate compliance with the PUD standards as recommended by the City. Over the course of the City’s review of the project, both Planning Commissioners and the neighboring residents have expressed a preference for the taller, more unique building design that provides more open space on the site and maintains a split between three and four levels. In essence, any portion of the building facing a residential area will appear to be three stories high, while all four-level elevations will be facing commercial areas or another similar building. The only exception will be the building on Lot 2, Block 1 that will have a four-level elevation facing the multi-family project to the north. UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY As part of the City’s review of the project prior to the June Planning Commission meeting, the City hired Bolton and Menk to perform a high-level traffic study with the primary purpose of comparing the proposed development with a previous concept plan considered for the site. Some of the findings from this study as noted in the previous staff report are as follows: 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. While the results of this study were useful for considering the overall land use impacts and changes, staff recognizes the need for further review of the existing and future road conditions in the area to more fully understand potential impacts on the current road network. With this in mind, the transportation consultant was asked to perform a second analysis, this time focusing on the two entrances into the development site and the potential impacts of the development on the roads/intersections in the surrounding area. The City also performed traffic counts on the streets near the project site over four days in mid-July to obtain a general indication of the current traffic levels and flow of traffic in the area. The traffic count data is not enclosed but shows that the daily traffic in the area is, at present, well below the capacity of the road network. Generally, Business Parkway and Blanca Avenue see around 500 average daily trips (ADT) a day while 149th Street is around 200 ADT. With reduced levels of commuting due to the coronavirus, it is likely that these numbers may be skewed downward somewhat from normal conditions. It is also not possible to infer from the raw traffic counts how much of this traffic is using Business Parkway and Blanca Avenue as a “cut-through” route to travel between 145th Street and County Highway 42 since they represent totals of all traffic using the road network. Without any development on the applicant’s site, the City does not have any information to document where these vehicles may go, and can only make assumptions based on the current allocation of traffic along these streets. As the KJ Walk parcels develop in the future, the City will be able to gain a better understanding of traffic patterns in the area, and additional traffic studies should be required with future project phases. 8 The most recent traffic study examines the potential traffic generation on the entirety of the KJ Walk site (including parcels outside the current request) in addition to focusing on the impacts from the present PUD application for a hotel and senior living apartments (this is referred to as Phase 1 in the study). With all planned development in the area, the transportation consultant estimates there will be 8,168 daily trips generated by the project, compared to 958 for just Phase 1. Given the wide discrepancy between these numbers, the resulting impacts vary quite a bit between the two scenarios, which in turn dictates when road improvements may be necessary to support all planned development in the area. Some of the more important findings from the study are as follows: • At full build out (i.e. all future commercial and multi-family development in the area) there are several intersections that will experience significant delays and congestion, especially at 149th Street and Business Parkway and Business Parkway and County Highway 42. • For the site to function adequately at full build-out, improvements along County Highway 42 are needed, and in particular, the construction of a traffic signal at Biscayne Avenue and the reconstruction of the Business Parkway intersection as a ¾ access intersection (no left turning movements on to the highway). This work is consistent with Dakota County’s access management plan for Highway 42. The consultant estimates that the threshold for requiring improvements will likely occur at around 40% of the overall site build-out, or when the average daily trips exceed 3,300. • The current road network in the area will be able to handle the planned Phase 1/PUD improvements, and no improvements along Highway 42 are needed at this time. • The proposed northern ¾ access into the subject property will help maintain good access at the southern entrance (149th Street) while eliminating turning movements directly into the residential area from the north. • Staff, including the City Engineer, transportation consultant and Planning Department all recommend the construction of both access points, ¾ in the north, and continued operation of Business Parkway and Blanca Avenue as a north/south through route in the area. Based on the results of the most recent traffic analysis, staff is not recommending any changes to the updated site development plans concerning the planned driveways and access to the site. As noted by City’s consultant, there is a threshold at which improvements to Highway 42 are necessary; therefore, any future site plan approvals and development in the area beyond the current PUD request should not be allowed until a future traffic study and analysis is performed. This will allow the City to evaluate the status of hotel and senior apartment portions of the project (or any portions that have been constructed) in conjunction with any further development. As documented on the traffic studies, most of the future traffic generation on the KJ Walk property will occur when the commercial properties are developed. The current studies will form a good baseline for making future decisions about the improvements needed as future development occurs in the area. Other Engineering Comments. The Engineering department has reviewed the PUD development plans, and updated engineering comments are detailed in the attached memo dated September 22, 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. In addition, the developer has not yet reimbursed the City for its expenses in preparing the traffic studies for the project; conditions of approval have been drafted to address the needed City payments. 9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on the information provided by the applicant and reviewed in the current and the previous staff 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. Recommended motions for all recommended actions are listed at the beginning of this report along with the recommended conditions of approval. BUSINESS PKY 148TH ST W BUSINESSPKWYBOYSENBERRY CT BRENNER CT BOSTONCIR149TH ST W BUSINESS PKY 148TH 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 BUSINESS PKY148TH ST W BUSINESSPKWYBOYSENBERRY CT BRENNER CT BOSTONCIRL 147TH CT W 149TH ST W Figure 3: Existing Zoning Designations 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 3536383937434140421 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12131415168'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 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 GREEN SPACEC . S . A . H 4 2GREEN SPACEGREEN SPACEGREEN SPACEA M M M AA A M M M M M M L A A A 18" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER12" STORM SEWER 15" STORM SEWER15"15"12"952954954956952956952956956 CONVERT TO CB REMOVE EXISTINGCB 5308 8'M M M A A L 960958 AA A L 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 6 Date: 8/7/2020 FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised-1.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 Preliminary Landscape Plan For Review August 7, 2020 Revised03/02/2020 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 0 100 200 300 Revised05/06/2020 Impervious vs Pervious Area Sq Ft Percent Total Area 1021826 Building Foot Print 205367 20.1% Pond B (NWL)15078 1.48% Green Space 328655 32.16% Parking/Sidewalks 472725 46.26% Revised08/07/2020 114.00 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 91.00114.00 104.92 250.12150.5859.3245.67 190.8091.0091.0091.0091.001 246.1255.00 97.54274.61 291.0045.68 291.0045.68 291.01N05°59'24"W40.53N10°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"E123.31N19°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 6 Date: 8/7/2020 FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised-1.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 Revised05/06/2020 For Review August 7, 2020 Revised08/07/2020 3536383937434140421 2 3 48'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 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 GREEN SPACEC . S . A . H 4 2GREEN 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"952954954956952956952956956 20'X 75' ROCKCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REMOVE CURB CONVERT TO CB REMOVE EXISTINGCB 5308 8'960958 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 6 Date: 8/7/2020 FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised-1.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 Revised05/06/2020 For Review August 7, 2020 Revised08/07/2020 3536383937434140421 2 3 48'RESTAURANTRESTAURANT RETAIL/RESTAURANT RETAIL RETAIL 40 UNIT APARTMENTS40 UNIT APARTMENTS8'RETAIL 8'8'8'8'8'1 8" PVC @ 0.40%952954954956952956952956956MH2T=57.15I=35.33 MH1T=52.30I=33.73 EX-MH6030T=49.23I=32.77 MH2T=56.6I=34.74 MH2T=55.75I=36.61 TEMP FIRE HYDRANT TEMP FIRE HYDRANT 8'960958 6001 Egan Drive, Ste 100, Savage, MN 55378 Phone: 952.226.3200 Web: www.kjwalk.com Date: Revision: Original Preliminary Utilities SHEET 4 of 6 Date: 8/7/2020 FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised-1.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 Revised05/06/2020 For Review August 7, 2020 Revised08/07/2020 35363839371 1 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 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 13 13 11 1 1 91 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 960958 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 6 Date: 8/7/2020 FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised-1.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. Revised05/06/2020 Revised06/05/2020 For Review August 7, 2020 Revised08/07/2020 3536383937434140421 2 3 48'RESTAURANTRESTAURANT RETAIL/RESTAURANT 8'8'8'8'8'8'A M M M AA A M M M M M M L A A A EX-MH6030T=49.23I=32.778'M M M A A L AA A L 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 6 of 6 Date: 8/7/2020 FILE PATH: G:\My Drive\Work Files\Rosemount Projects\Rosewood Center Apartments Hotel\Engineering\CAD\DWGs\RCE-Site Plan revised-1.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 8'72 Autumn Blaze Maple Acre Freemanii 'Jeffsred'2.5"24 Ash Fraxinus 2.5"18 Linden Tilia 2.5"21 Total Trees 135 Shrubs 290 St. John's Wort, Low Grow Sumac, Tor Spirea, Hyperion Daylily, Dwarf Lilac, Or similar Total 425 Required Trees Apartments = 1 per Unit(125 Units)125 Hotel = 1 Per 3,000 Sq Ft of Land (28951 SqFt)10 Total 135 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 Revised05/06/2020 Revised06/18/2020 For Review August 7, 2020 Revised08/07/2020 22'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-7"14'-8"REAR ELEVATION2'-3"FIBER CEMENTSHAKES SIDINGFIBER CEMENTTRIMEARTH BERMVINYL SINGLEHUNG WINDOWSASPHALT SHINGLESFIBER CEMENT BOARD& BATTEN SIDINGFIBER CEMENT ROOF EDGE (TYP.)MASONRYPREFIN.BALCONY DECK& GUARDRAILMET. LOUVERMET. GUARD -PAINTEDFIBER CEMENTROOF EDGE -(TYP.)MASONRYASPHALT SHINGLESMETAL DWELLING UNIT DOORS - PTD.(12)21 S.F. = 252 S.F. VINYL SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS(48)15 SF. = 720 SF. METAL LOUVERS - PAINTED(2)18 SF. = 36 SF. BUILDING FACADE AREA MINUS WDW. & DR. AREAMASONRY AREA MINUS WDWS. & DRS.252 SF. + 720 SF. + 36 SF. = 2014 SF. - 1008 SF. MASONRY AS % OF FACADE W/O WDWS. & DRS.1,006 SF. / 4,557 SF. = 22.0 % 53'-9"MIDPOINT OF HIGHEST GABLEGROSS AREA REAR ELEVATIONTOTAL BLDG. FACADE 4,557 SF. 4,557 SF.METAL DWELLING UNIT DOORS - PTD.(12)21 S.F. = 252 S.F. = 252 SF.VINYL SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS= 720 SF.(48)15 SF. = 720 SF. METAL LOUVERS - PAINTED= 36 SF.(2)18 SF. = 36 SF. = 1,008 SF.- 1,008 SF.- 3,549 SF.BUILDING FACADE AREA MINUS WDW. & DR. AREAMASONRY AREA MINUS WDWS. & DRS.= 1,006 SF.252 SF. + 720 SF. + 36 SF. = 2014 SF. - 1008 SF. MASONRY AS % OF FACADE W/O WDWS. & DRS.1,006 SF. / 4,557 SF. = 22.0 % ISSUE LOG:DATE ISSUE1. 2018-12-22 SCHEMATIC DESIGN2. 2019-03-01 SCHEMATIC UPDATE3. 2020-02-21 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT4. 2020-05-05 PLANNING APPLICATION5. 2020-09-09 REV. PLANNING APPLICATIONCIVIC ADDRESS :150th St WestRosemount, MN 55068Dakota CountyPID:34-30900-01-01034-65202-02-010RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS 150th St West, Rosemount, MN GENERAL NOTES:1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEEASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION 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. WHEREDISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.DRAFT1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2Minneapolis, MN 55405AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894t: 612.616.9472e: joy@joyarchitecture.comw: joyarchitecture.comCOPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTINARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENTNKJ Walk Inc.6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100Savage, MN 55378t: 952.226.3200e: info@kjwalk.comw: kjwalk.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of thestate of Minnesota.Signature: _______________________________Typed or Printed Name: Joy Rackley MartinDate: 2020-07-01License Number: 51894EXTERIORELEVATIONA2.0SCALE:PARK-SIDE ELEVATION13/16" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION3'-6"GROSS AREA THIS ELEVATIONFIBER CEMENTSHAKES SIDINGFIBER CEMENTTRIMMASONRYVINYL SINGLEHUNG WINDOWSASPHALT SHINGLESFIBER CEMENT BOARD& BATTEN SIDINGFIBER CEMENT ROOF EDGE (TYP.)PRECAST CONC.SILLMASONRYBALCONY DECK& GUARDRAILMETAL CANOPYMETAL CANOPY5,383 S.F.FIBER CEMENT SHAKES195 S.F.ALUM. STORE-FRONT WINDOWSALUM. PERGOLAPIPE GUARDRAIL, PAINTED57 SF. + 43 SF. + 43 SF. = 143 SF. BUILDING FACADE AREA MINUS WDW. & DR. AREAMASONRY AREA MINUS WDWS. & DRS.646 SF. + 646 SF. + 1,419 SF. = 2,711 SF. - 493 SF. MASONRY AS % OF FACADE W/O WDWS. & DRS.2,218 SF. / 5,383 SF. = 41.2 % 22'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-7"14'-8"5,383 SF. GROSS BLDG. FACADE AREAGROSS AREA FRONT ELEVATIONTOTAL BLDG. FACADE 5,383 SF. 5,383 SF.METAL DWELLING UNIT DOORS - PTD.(10)21 S.F. = 210 S.F. = 210 SF.VINYL SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS= 570 SF.(38)15 SF. = 570 SF. STOREFRONT WINDOWS= 350 SF.(10)35 SF. = 350 SF. STOREFRONT DOORS= 143 SF.57 SF. + 43 SF. + 43 SF. = 143 SF. = 1,273 SF.- 1,273 SF.- 4,110 SF.BUILDING FACADE AREA MINUS WDW. & DR. AREAMASONRY AREA MINUS WDWS. & DRS.= 2,218 SF.646 SF. + 646 SF. + 1,419 SF. = 2,711 SF. - 493 SF. MASONRY AS % OF FACADE W/O WDWS. & DRS.2,218 SF. / 5,383 SF. = 41.2 % ISSUE LOG:DATE ISSUE1. 2018-12-22 SCHEMATIC DESIGN2. 2019-03-01 SCHEMATIC UPDATE3. 2020-02-21 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT4. 2020-05-05 PLANNING APPLICATION5. 2020-09-09 REV. PLANNING APPLICATIONCIVIC ADDRESS :150th St WestRosemount, MN 55068Dakota CountyPID:34-30900-01-01034-65202-02-010RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS 150th St West, Rosemount, MN GENERAL NOTES:1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEEASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION 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. WHEREDISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.DRAFT1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2Minneapolis, MN 55405AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894t: 612.616.9472e: joy@joyarchitecture.comw: joyarchitecture.comCOPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTINARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENTNKJ Walk Inc.6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100Savage, MN 55378t: 952.226.3200e: info@kjwalk.comw: kjwalk.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of thestate of Minnesota.Signature: _______________________________Typed or Printed Name: Joy Rackley MartinDate: 2020-07-01License Number: 51894EXTERIORELEVATIONA2.1SCALE:STREET-SIDE ELEVATION13/16" = 1'-0" 22'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-7"14'-8"GARAGE SIDE ELEVATION PARKING GARAGE2'-6"FIBER CEMENTSHAKES SIDINGPIPE GUARDRAILPAINTEDMASONRYVINYL SINGLEHUNG WINDOWSASPHALT SHINGLESFIBER CEMENT BOARD& BATTEN SIDINGFIBER CEMENT ROOF EDGE (TYP.)PRECAST CONC.SILLMASONRYBALCONY DECK& GUARDRAILMETAL CANOPYALUM. STORE-FRONT WINDOWSALUM. PORTICOPAINTEDMIDPOINT OF HIGHEST GABLEGROSS AREA SIDE ELEVATIONTOTAL BLDG. FACADE 3,852 SF. 3,852 SF.VINYL SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS= 318 SF.(12)19 SF. + (6)15 = 318 SF. METAL LOUVERS - PAINTED= 36 SF.(2)35 SF. = 70 SF. = 714 SF.- 714 SF.- 3,138 SF.BUILDING FACADE AREA MINUS WDW. & DR. AREAMASONRY AREA MINUS WDWS. & DRS.- 1,343 SF.1,487 SF. - (6)19 SF. - (2)15 = 1,343 SF.MASONRY AS % OF FACADE W/O WDWS. & DRS.1,343 SF. / 3,852 SF. = 34.9 % METAL DOORS - PAINTED35 S.F. + 24 S.F. + 144 S.F. +46 S.F. + 111 S.F. = 360 SF.ISSUE LOG:DATE ISSUE1. 2018-12-22 SCHEMATIC DESIGN2. 2019-03-01 SCHEMATIC UPDATE3. 2020-02-21 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT4. 2020-05-05 PLANNING APPLICATION5. 2020-09-09 REV. PLANNING APPLICATIONCIVIC ADDRESS :150th St WestRosemount, MN 55068Dakota CountyPID:34-30900-01-01034-65202-02-010RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS 150th St West, Rosemount, MN GENERAL NOTES:1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEEASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION 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. WHEREDISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.DRAFT1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2Minneapolis, MN 55405AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894t: 612.616.9472e: joy@joyarchitecture.comw: joyarchitecture.comCOPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTINARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENTNKJ Walk Inc.6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100Savage, MN 55378t: 952.226.3200e: info@kjwalk.comw: kjwalk.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of thestate of Minnesota.Signature: _______________________________Typed or Printed Name: Joy Rackley MartinDate: 2020-07-01License Number: 51894EXTERIORELEVATIONA2.2SCALE:GARAGE ENTRY ELEVATION13/16" = 1'-0" 22'-0" 11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-7"14'-8"SIDE ELEVATION PARKING GARAGE2'-6"FIBER CEMENTSHAKES SIDINGPIPE GUARDRAILPAINTEDMASONRYVINYL SINGLEHUNG WINDOWSASPHALT SHINGLESFIBER CEMENT BOARD& BATTEN SIDINGFIBER CEMENT ROOF EDGE (TYP.)PRECAST CONC.SILLMASONRYBALCONY DECK& GUARDRAILMETAL CANOPYALUM. PORTICOPAINTEDMIDPOINT OF HIGHEST GABLE45'-1"GROSS AREA SIDE ELEVATIONTOTAL BLDG. FACADE 3,852 SF. 3,852 SF.VINYL SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS= 318 SF.(12)19 SF. + (6)15 = 318 SF. METAL LOUVERS - PAINTED= 36 SF.(2)35 SF. = 70 SF. = 714 SF.- 714 SF.- 3,138 SF.BUILDING FACADE AREA MINUS WDW. & DR. AREAMASONRY AREA MINUS WDWS. & DRS.- 1,343 SF.1,487 SF. - (6)19 SF. - (2)15 = 1,343 SF.MASONRY AS % OF FACADE W/O WDWS. & DRS.1,343 SF. / 3,852 SF. = 34.9 % METAL DOORS - PAINTED35 S.F. + 24 S.F. + 144 S.F. +46 S.F. + 111 S.F. = 360 SF.ISSUE LOG:DATE ISSUE1. 2018-12-22 SCHEMATIC DESIGN2. 2019-03-01 SCHEMATIC UPDATE3. 2020-02-21 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT4. 2020-05-05 PLANNING APPLICATION5. 2020-09-09 REV. PLANNING APPLICATIONCIVIC ADDRESS :150th St WestRosemount, MN 55068Dakota CountyPID:34-30900-01-01034-65202-02-010RCE MIXED USE APARTMENTS 150th St West, Rosemount, MN GENERAL NOTES:1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUDS OR FOUNDATION WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. TOP OF SLAB ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR. SEEASSEMBLIES PAGE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.2. ANY ON-SITE DIMENSION DISCREPANCY IS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION 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. WHEREDISCREPANCIES OCCUR, REVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT.5. ALL SURFACES REQUIRING POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUM.DRAFT1005 W. Franklin Ave, #2Minneapolis, MN 55405AIA Minnesota, Lic #51894t: 612.616.9472e: joy@joyarchitecture.comw: joyarchitecture.comCOPYRIGHT RESERVED: THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AND AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF JOY MARTINARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN CONSENTNKJ Walk Inc.6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100Savage, MN 55378t: 952.226.3200e: info@kjwalk.comw: kjwalk.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of thestate of Minnesota.Signature: _______________________________Typed or Printed Name: Joy Rackley MartinDate: 2020-07-01License Number: 51894EXTERIORELEVATIONA2.2SCALE:PARK-SIDE ELEVATION13/16" = 1'-0" H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18121597\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\ENTRANCE TIS MEMO\2020-08-17_Access Traffic Memorandum.docx MEMORANDUM Date: August 17, 2020 To: Kim Lindquist Community Development Director From: Casey Kaucher, P.E. Jacob Bongard, P.E., PTOE Matt Blazer, P.E. Subject: Traffic Impact Study Rosewood Center – Access Management Introduction A high-level traffic study was completed to compare two entrance options, a right in/right out entrance and ¾ entrance for the Rosewood Center development site. Level of Service (LOS) and Delay were used to analyze the potential impacts associated with each entrance proposal. Review · The Rosewood Center development proposal is located at the northwest corner of County Road 42 (CSAH 42) and Business Parkway. · CSAH 42 is a four-lane divided roadway with a raised grass median and paved shoulder classified as a principal arterial with a 55 mile per hour speed limit. 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 and gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Business Parkway north of the site continues into a residential area and turns into148th St which ultimately becomes Blanca Ave. Blanca Ave intersects the major collector roadway, 145th St. · The proposed Rosewood Center is a mixed-use development including hotel, retail, senior housing apartment, and restaurant land uses. The development will be constructed in phases with Phase 1 to consist of 5 hotels and 6 senior housing apartments. The Rosewood Center Traffic Impact Study dated June 19, 2020 contains the trip generation calculations for the development and a summary of the trip for phase 1 and the full build out of the Rosewood Development are as follows: Rosewood Development Phase 1 Rosewood Development Full Build Out AM Peak 70 702 PM Peak 74 868 Weekday 958 8168 · AM peak hour volumes were assumed to be 8% of the ADT and PM peak hour volumes were assumed to be 10% of the ADT. · Trip distribution assumptions were based on July 2020 traffic count data provided by the City of Rosemount and Minnesota Department of Transportation count data dated 2018. Traffic count data may be impacted by changing traffic patterns associated with COVID 19 pandemic. Operations Analysis The Rosewood Center development proposes two entrance locations to Business Parkway. The southern entrance to be a full access with side street stop controls. The northern access to be configured as a right in/right out or a ¾ intersection. See figure below. The right in/right out entrance option prohibits left turning vehicular movements into or out of the site and prohibits northbound traffic from entering the development. The ¾ entrance option eliminates left turning vehicular movements from exiting the site but allows northbound vehicles to turn left into the development. Both options prohibit vehicles from making the left turn movement to enter the residential area from the northern entrance forcing users that desire to travel north bound on busines parkway to use the southern entrance location. The southern entrance is to be a full access intersection with the side streets required to stop. Trafficware Synchro was used to model the existing condition, right in/right out, and ¾ intersection scenarios. LOS results are described using letters ranging from A to F. They are calculated based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition, which defines the LOS based on control delay. Control delay is the delay experienced by vehicles slowing down as they are approaching the intersection, the wait time at the intersection, and the time for the vehicle to speed up through the intersection and enter into the traffic stream. The average intersection control delay is a volume weighted average of delay experienced by all motorists entering the intersection on all intersection approaches. LOS D is commonly taken as an acceptable LOS. The results are shown in Tables 1-5 below. See appendix for traffic volume data. Table 1. Existing Conditions – No Build Development Table 2. Phase 1 Build Conditions – Right In/Right Out Entrance L T R L T R EB 4 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A 6 - A 1 - A 0 - A 2 - A WB 3 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A 6 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A NB 20 - C 45 - E 3 - A 14 - B 39 - E - 4 - A 20 - C SB 19 - C 23 - C 3 - A 11 - B 39 - E 13 - B 4 - A 19 - C WB 4 - A - 2 - A 4 - A 4 - A - 2 - A 4 - A NB - 0 - A 0 - A 0 - A - 0 - A 0 - A 0 - A SB - 0 - A - 0 - A 2 - A 0 - A - 1 - A Intersection Business Pkway/Busn Pkway & 150th St W Busn Pkway & C4 Commercial/149th St W Approach AM Peak Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS)Approach (Delay - LOS) Intersection (Delay - LOS) 1 - A 1 - A PM Peak Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS)Approach (Delay - LOS) Intersection (Delay - LOS) 1 - A 1 - A L T R L T R EB 4 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A 6 - A 1 - A 0 - A 2 - A WB 4 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A 5 - A 1 - A 0 - A 2 - A NB 25 - D 26 - D 3 - A 15 - C 45 - E 29 - D 5 - A 26 - D SB 28 - D 22 - C 3 - A 17 - C 60 - F 47 - E 4 - A 33 - D EB 4 - A 6 - A 2 - A 4 - A 4 - A 7 - A 2 - A 4 - A WB 4 - A 7 - A 2 - A 4 - A 5 - A 6 - A 2 - A 5 - A NB 2 - A 0 - A 0 - A 2 - A 2 - A 1 - A 1 - A 2 - A SB 1 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A 2 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A EB - - 2 - A 2 - A - - 2 - A 2 - A NB - 0 - A - 0 - A - 0 - A - 0 - A SB - 0 - A 0 - A 0 - A - 0 - A 0 - A 0 - A Intersection Business Pkway/Busn Pkway & 150th St W Busn Pkway & C4 Commercial/149th St W Busn Pkway & C4 Commercial Approach AM Peak Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS)Approach (Delay - LOS) Intersection (Delay - LOS) 1 - A 2 - A 1 - A PM Peak Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS)Approach (Delay - LOS) Intersection (Delay - LOS) 2 - A 2 - A 0 - A Table 3. Phase 1 Build Conditions – ¾ Entrance Entrance Comparison · All three intersections operate at LOS A for the existing conditions. The delays that occur on the minor side streets are expected during peak hour traffic. · For Phase 1 development traffic, all three intersections operate at LOS A for both the right in/right out entrance and the ¾ entrance option. · The southbound left turn movement on Business Parkway at CSAH 42 reaches LOS F during the PM Peak hour due to vehicle delay. Full Development Build Out / Future Condition Traffic modeling indicates that improvements on CSAH 42 will be necessary to complete the full build out of the Rosewood Development. If the existing configuration of CSAH 42 are left in place, queues on Business Parkway will form long enough to impact the intersections of 149th St/Business Parkway and Business Parkway/CSAH 42. A corridor study of CSAH 42 was previously conducted indicating that a ¾ entrance from CSAH 42 onto Business Parkway would be implemented and a signal would be installed at Biscayne Avenue. This would convert 149th St into a frontage road and would be that route traffic desiring to travel westbound on CSAH 42 would need to take after exiting the Rosewood. A sensitivity analysis indicates the southbound movements on Business Parkway at CSAH 42 are anticipated to back into the adjacent intersection at 149th St when approximately 40% of the full build out trips are generated, or about 3,300 trips. Phase 1 of the Rosewood development represents 11% of the trips generated by the full build out. Two scenarios were also analyzed for the southern entrance to determine the need for the future lane configuration leaving the development on eastbound 149th St. A single lane (left/thru/right lane) was compared to a two lane (left/thru and a right lane). Only the results of the PM Peak hour are shown as this hour was determined to be the control. L T R L T R EB 4 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A 7 - A 1 - A 1 - A 2 - A WB 4 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A 5 - A 1 - A 0 - A 2 - A NB 27 - D 20 - C 4 - A 16 - C 46 - E 23 - C 4 - A 26 - D SB 24 - C 17 - C 3 - A 14 - B 78 - F 27 - D 5 - A 37 - E EB 4 - A 6 - A 2 - A 4 - A 5 - A 5 - A 3 - A 4 - A WB 5 - A 6 - A 2 - A 5 - A 5 - A 5 - A 2 - A 5 - A NB 2 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A 2 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A SB - 0 - A 0 - A 0 - A 2 - A 0 - A 0 - A 1 - A EB - - 2 - A 2 - A - - 2 - A 2 - A NB 2 - A 0 - A - 1 - A 2 - A 0 - A - 1 - A SB - 0 - A 0 - A 0 - A - 0 - A 0 - A 0 - A Intersection Business Pkway/Busn Pkway & 150th St W Busn Pkway & C4 Commercial/149th St W Busn Pkway & C4 Commercial Approach AM Peak Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS)Approach (Delay - LOS) Intersection (Delay - LOS) 1 - A 2 - A 1 - A PM Peak Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS)Approach (Delay - LOS) Intersection (Delay - LOS) 2 - A 2 - A 1 - A Table 4. Full Build Conditions at 149th/Business Parkway – Single lane Table 5. Full Build Conditions at 149th/Business Parkway – Two lane Both the single and two lane options for the eastbound approach at 149th Street are anticipate to have an eastbound approach LOS B. The additional exclusive right turn lane does reduce the eastbound right turning delay, however, the overall impact is negligible. Recommendation The 3/4 entrance design for the north entrance is recommended for the Rosewood Development. It allows the left turning movements to be shared equally between the northern and southern entrance while still restricting development traffic from exiting toward the residential area. The right in/right out option concentrates all left turning movements into the development to occur at the southern entrance. Both the right in/right out and 3/4 entrance are acceptable for the Phase 1 development, but the 3/4 entrance will allow the south entrance to perform better in the future by balancing the left turn distribution into Rosewood Center. The need for this balanced distribution of traffic will be more evident as vehicle trips increase with future phases of development as there is concern of northbound queuing on Business Parkway extending into the CSAH 42 and Business Parkway intersection to south. Furthermore, the eastbound approach exiting the development is anticipated to operate at acceptable levels with a single left/thru/right lane. Finally, it is anticipated that improvements to CSAH 42 as described within this report are expected to be necessary when approximately 40% of the full development is completed. This is about 3,300 total trips generated by the site. L T R EB 13 - B 14 - B 10 - B 13 - B WB 12 - B 8 - A 8 - A 9 - A NB 2 - A 1 - A 0 - A 2 - A SB 3 - A 1 - A 0 - A 3 - A 7 - A 4:00 PM Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS)Approach (Delay - LOS) Intersection (Delay - LOS)ApproachIntersection Busn Pkway & C4 Commercial/149th St W L T R EB 14 - B 14 - B 4 - A 12 - B WB 15 - C 8 - A 7 - A 9 - A NB 2 - A 1 - A 0 - A 2 - A SB 3 - A 1 - A 0 - A 2 - A 7 - A 4:00 PM Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS)Approach (Delay - LOS) Intersection (Delay - LOS)ApproachIntersection Busn Pkway & C4 Commercial/149th St W MEMORANDUM To: Kyle Klatt, Senior 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 Updated September 22, 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 August 7, 2020) ▫ Site Plan (dated August 7, 2020) ▫ Utility Plan (dated August 7, 2020) ▫ Grading Plan (dated August 7, 2020) ▫ Landscaping Plan (dated August 7, 2020) ▫ Lighting Plan (dated February 20, 2020) ▫ Stormwater Management Report (dated April 17, 2020) ▫ Traffic Impact Study (dated June 12, 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. TRAFFIC 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 configuration of the northern access to the site was examined, and a ¾ intersection to reduce access to the residential neighborhood is recommended. This will provide a needed secondary access for the site during maintenance operations as well as when needed for public safety, while restricting traffic turning into the neighborhood north of the development. The traffic memorandum is included as an attachment in the full staff report. The analysis confirmed that intersections will operate at acceptable capacities with the additional traffic volume anticipated with the proposed phase of Rosemount Center. However, the analysis identifies thresholds anticipated in future phases of development of this area which will require improvements to the nearby City and County Road intersections to accommodate traffic volumes. 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 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. 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. MnDOT pedestrian ramp standard detail plates shall be included in the plan set for compliance with ADA standards. 10. The applicant shall submit a signage plan for review. Type-three barricades shall be placed on all dead-end streets. 11. The street lighting plan shall be revised to comply with City standards, to include street lights at all intersections. WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER The applicant proposes to connect to City watermain at Brenner Court and City sanitary sewer at 149th Street West. 12. 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. 13. Watermain shall be looped at 149th Street. 14. 12” watermain is required for commercial areas. 15. Plan shall specify watermain material as ductile iron pipe (DIP) per the Engineering Design Guidelines. 16. Connections to existing watermain shall be valved. 17. Hydrant spacing and locations shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall. Typical requirements in commercial and multi-family areas is 300 feet. 18. 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. 19. The water and sanitary main lines shall be owned and maintained by the City. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. The applicant shall perform pre- and post-construction testing on the existing infiltration basins adjacent to the construction site, to verify sediment discharges have not damaged the public systems. 24. Upon completion of construction of the infiltration basin expansion, the applicant’s engineer shall submit infiltrometer testing to certify the functionality of the expanded area. 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 August 12, 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 Des ign 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 August 12, 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 August 12, 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 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 = [1/12 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑐−𝑐𝑛𝑛𝑟/𝑟�ℎ𝑟𝑐 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑐𝑟/𝑐𝑎𝑦] ∗[𝑟�ℎ𝑟𝑐 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑐𝑟] [𝐷𝑐𝑟�ℎ𝑐𝑛 𝐼𝑛𝑐�ℎ𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑐 �ℎ𝑛/�𝑟]∗[1 𝑐𝑟/ 12�ℎ𝑛]∗[24�𝑟/𝑐𝑎𝑦] or 𝐴𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑛 𝐷𝐴 (𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑟) 𝐼𝑛𝑒�ℎ𝑙𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑛𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑒 (�ℎ𝑛/�𝑟)∗ 0.0416 (𝑐𝑛𝑛𝑣.𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑛𝑟) 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: 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 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. 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:Comment To:Lindquist, Kim Subject:FW: Hotel, Senior living Apartments with Commercial at Rosewood estates project Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:48:20 AM Somehow I missed this one – forwarding to you now: From: jean brown <jeana1019@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:42 PM To: Comment <Comment@ci.rosemount.mn.us> Subject: Hotel, Senior living Apartments with Commercial at Rosewood estates project We live at 14879 Brenner Ct. Rosemount MN The access (into/out from) the proposed apartments is directly across the street from the corner of my backyard. We do not have any fence or trees along my property line so the increase in traffic in/out of apartments could be quite unpleasant for our privacy and “ safety” in our backyard. We are asking if a (“right” in “right” out) at the access would create less traffic and be safer on the curve of the street coming from 148th onto Brenner Ct. We are also asking if we could be provided some trees by the developer to place along the border of our property to help with the loss of privacy and concerns of safety to our property from the increased traffic created from the access. If trees cannot be provided by the developer then we are asking if the city would install privacy fencing for privacy and safety on our property across from the proposed access. We are wondering about landscaping and grading that will be done around the access as we will have limited privacy benefit for our backyards due to access needing to be at ground level and be open for sight lines for the traffic. We recently met with the developer and city staff and discussed this as a possibility. We wanted to be sure the Planning Commission and City Council are aware of our concerns and what was discussed. Thank You Mike and Jean Brown Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From:Comment To:Lindquist, Kim Subject:FW: Development project on Business Parkway Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 9:45:07 AM Good morning, Kim - I'm passing this on from the comments inbox: -----Original Message----- From: Shelly Passeri <shelly.passeri@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 10:46 AM To: Comment <Comment@ci.rosemount.mn.us> Subject: Development project on Business Parkway My name is Shelly Passeri and I live at 2705 148th St W. It has been brought to my attention that the city is considering a development plan that would be built on Business Parkway in which the zoning is being changed to a high density zone. This is alarming only in the sense of what I am hearing being proposed. I am very concerned about several issues. Some of these issues are the high traffic level that would occur, the height of the buildings, and the amount of privacy that will be lost to our neighborhood. The high level of traffic would increase tremendously and it is already a concern without the buildings. Because of Anytime Fitness the traffic level was raised. When a train is stopped and traffic builds up on highway 42 our neighborhood becomes the gateway to get to the other side of 42 by cutting through. I cannot imagine what another 80 plus units will add to our already increased traffic. It is extremely concerning around the corner as cars fly by around the curve in front of where a proposed entrance to the development is. We have many children in those households! I think the best option is to close our street off (148th St W) at Brenner Court and have the entrance to the new development on the other side. Another concern is the height of the buildings. I believe that there is a code to follow about how high the buildings can be and I hear that they are trying to maximize this to the full extent. These developers are not thinking about how that will affect our homes and privacy. They are thinking about being able to sell or rent out more units at the expense of our privacy. We don't want buildings that have occupants that can see directly into our private yards. I also would like to bring up the concern of how the buildings will be buffered with landscaping. My hope would be that is would be dense enough that on ground level we can maintain the privacy of our yards. These are very real concerns and my neighbors and I all feel the same way. These are our highest concerns and I feel that with some considerate planning a logical and safe plan can be made so all involved are happy. I also would like to add that during construction there would not be trucks going up and down our street. It is loud, messy, and dangerous considering all the children outside. Thank you, Shelly Passeri 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