HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Rosewood Commons CPA Rezoning PUD and Plat
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Regular Meeting: October 5, 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:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 9.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolutions: Comp Plan Amendment,
PUD, Preliminary Plat; Rezoning
Ordinance; PUD Agreement; 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); Planning
Commission Minutes (6/23 and 9/22)
APPROVED BY: LJM
RECOMMENDED ACTION (APPROVALS): Staff and the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council make the following actions:
1) Motion to adopt a resolution approving 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
2) Motion to adopt an ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone 5.5
acres of land west of Business Parkway from C4 – General Commercial to HDR –
High Density Residential
2
3) Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master
Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plans with rezoning to HDR-PUD and
C4-PUD for four senior apartment buildings, two senior apartment buildings with
ground floor retail, and a 79-unit hotel subject to conditions.
4) Motion to Approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan
Agreement for Rosewood Commons and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter
into the agreement.
5) Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commons
subject to conditions.
SUMMARY
The City Council is being asked to consider 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 proposal covers portions of the
commercial property within the Rosewood Estates subdivision and requires amendments to change the
future land use and zoning for some of the property to high density residential. In addition to the land use
and zoning changes, the applicant is requesting approval of PUD Master Development and Final
Development plans for a 79-unit hotel complex and 124 units of senior housing in six individual buildings,
two of which would have ground-level retail, with related parking, driveway, grading and other
improvements. In addition, the applicant is seeking approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide the
property into developable lots with one larger outlot reserved for future development.
The Planning Commission first reviewed the application in June, and after tabling its discussion on the
matter, continued its review in September with updated development plans. 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 attachments to this report, and any new or updated information has been
incorporated into the staff review and analysis later in this report.
With the updated application information, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval
of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Plat, and 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
3
Net Density (Res): 22.5 Units/Acre
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Multi-Family Residential
East: Single-Family Residential
South: Business Park
West: Commercial
Maximum Height: 35 Feet (C4 and R4 Districts)
Proposed Height: 53’ 9” Feet 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 Rosewood
Commons PUD 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 148th 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.
4
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – 9/22/20
The Planning Commission continued its discussion concerning the KJ Walk request on September 22,
2020 and reviewed the revised development plans and updated traffic study at that time. The
Commission’s discussion focused on the updated traffic study and revised landscape plan. Two issues
raised by some of the Commissioners was the northern entrance into the senior apartment area and
screening for the neighbors across the street from this entrance. Commissioners asked why the traffic
study did not look at a right-in/right-out option at full build out and questioned the overall impact the
access would have in the future. Jacob Bongard with Bolton and Menk responded that the northern
access is needed in the future to ensure safe and efficient operation of the 149th Street and Highway 42
intersections along Business Parkway, especially at full build out conditions for the entire KJ Walk
property. He also reviewed the traffic projections with the Commission and explained that a right-in/right-
out entrance was not sufficient to handle the expected traffic and would create delays at the other
intersections in the area, particularly associated with Business Parkway. At the meeting, Mr. Bongard
noted that some of the numbers were slightly off in the report; the updated and correct traffic study is
included in the Council meeting packet.
5
In response to the updated landscape plan, Commissioners discussed types of plants that were included in
the plan and questioned when the landscaping would be installed respective of other site improvements.
The Commission suggested a change to one of the conditions that would require all trees along Business
Parkway to be predominately evergreen. The Commission also stated that as many trees as possible
should be installed with the first phase of improvements, especially in the northern portion of the site that
will see limited grading activity. Some Commissioners expressed support for a reduction in the overall
number of trees required by the developer in exchange for trees planted on the neighboring private
property. Staff explained that the staff does not typically support requiring landscaping on property not
owned by the applicant. Because the applicant does not have control of the other properties, there is no
guarantee that the installed landscaping will be watered and maintained over the life of the project. It was
suggested that the developer could work with the private property owners on his own; recognizing he
would want to have neighborhood support for the project. Staff is aware that developer has reached out
to neighbors in advance of the City Council meeting and will be working with them to install some trees
on their properties to improve overall screening from the development.
Although the public hearing had been closed at an earlier meeting, the Commission received a written
letter and comments at the meeting as follows:
Jean and Mike Brown, 14879 Brenner C ourt, submitted a letter asking if the developer would be
willing to work with them to plant trees on their property to provide screening from the proposed
development.
Genesee Rasmussen, 2729 148th Street, stated that privacy is important to them and that the height
of the buildings and expected traffic levels are concerning.
After completing its review, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Future Land Use
Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Plat, and PUD Master Development and Final
Development plans, with additions or changes to the PUD conditions of approval as follows:
1) Add a requirement for a privacy wall on the balconies between units.
2) Revise the landscaping plan condition to specify that the trees along Business Parkway be
predominately evergreen.
3) Add a condition requiring construction traffic to use Business Parkway south of 149th Street and
avoid travelling through residential neighborhoods.
4) Granting a PUD exception to allow 10 fewer overstory trees than required by the landscaping
ordinance with an understanding that the developer will work with adjacent property owners to
plant trees on private properties along Business Parkway.
5) Add a condition that requires the developer to submit a phasing plan that includes the installation
of landscaping on the eastern portion of the site in the first phase that is outside of areas that will
be graded in the future
The Commission’s vote on all portions of the recommendation was unanimous (5-0).
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
6
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.
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. As noted in the preceding section, the Planning Commission wanted to see
a predominant number of evergreen trees along Business Parkway.
7
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.
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.
BACKGROUND
The proposed development site is located within the Rosewood Estates subdivision which was approved
by the City in 2001 as a predominately residential subdivision containing property stretching from 150th
Street in the South, to Biscayne Avenue in the east and 145th Street to the north (and further bounded by
the Progressive Rail line and the Grief Brothers/El Dorado industrial building). A little over 10 acres
directly along 150th Street and west of Business Parkway was guided and zoned for commercial uses at that
time. Since then, a large portion of the subdivision has been developed for single family homes, while
other portions have been reguided and rezoned for other uses. One of these changes occurred in 2004
when the City initiated a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment to zone all
undeveloped property within the subdivision adjacent to County Highway 42 and west of Business
Parkway for commercial development. This action created a continuous commercial area of just over 35
acres along Business Parkway and 149th Street West adjacent to the single-family residential sites within the
subdivision.
Around the time of the commercial land use amendments, the City was considering a concept plan for a
big-box retail development of the site, which would have been situated on all the property in Rosewood
Estates west of Business Parkway (roughly 24.5 acres). Included in this concept was a 175,000 square foot
general merchandise store (i.e. Target) along with a smaller area devoted to retail space adjacent to the
large user. This concept would have kept the existing commercial area along Highway 42 intact, providing
another 50,000 square feet of retail or restaurant uses. The concept plan never moved forward due to
access concerns and the site remained undeveloped.
In 2012 another development proposal came forward on portions of the subject property for a hotel, gas
station and car wash (on 2.2 acres east of Business Parkway), and five general commercial lots along
Highway 42. This concept was approved by the City but was never constructed nor was the related
subdivision recorded with the County. More recently, the City approved a request for an Anytime Fitness
facility and corresponding subdivision farther east of the former gas station site along 149th Street. As of
today, the Anytime Fitness building is the only commercial building that has been constructed within the
original Rosewood Estates commercial area.
8
The applicant has now come forward with a new plan for a portion of the Rosewood Estates property that
includes several different uses, and the proposed hotel is the only one that shares any similarities with the
previous land use approvals on the site. The senior apartments are residential in nature and will require
land use changes in order to be included as part of the project. In order to accommodate the proposed
uses, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into a new subdivision called Rosewood
Commons. The platted area will include the uses included in the present request and will leave roughly 15
acres as an outlot for future development. As part of the planning for the current requests, the applicant
has prepared an overall concept for the site which plans for commercial uses along County Road 42 and
additional senior apartments further west, near the rail spur comprising the western boundary of the plat.
The applicant is not seeking approval for these future uses at this time and would need to come back with
development plans (and potential further land use changes) prior to building on any portion of the larger
outlot.
The current request includes two distinct uses that would be approved as part an overall Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the property. The applicant has submitted more detailed development plans that
address the City’s requirements for approval of both a master development plan and final site plan for the
PUD area. Overall, there are five distinct actions associated with the request as follows:
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the City’s future land use map from CC –
Community Commercial to HDR – High Density Residential for the Senior Apartment portions
of the development. The applicant is proposing to remove roughly 7.9 aces from the commercial
land use category and change it to high density residential.
• Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the commercial property being regarded to the appropriate
zoning district. In this case, the applicant is proposing to rezone the land under the senior
apartments from C4 – General Commercial to R4 – High Density Residential.
• PUD Master Development Plan with Rezoning to approve the overall preliminary plans for
the property, which includes a 79-room hotel and 124 senior apartments in six buildings, two of
which would also include ground-floor retail. The PUD allows for a mix of uses on a
development site and allows for flexibility from meeting the dimensional standards of the zoning
ordinance. In this case, the applicant is requesting flexibility from some of the City’s standards,
including the use of shared parking facilities and the maximum height for structures.
• PUD Final Development Plan (Site Plan Review) to approve final development plans for the
specific uses and activities noted above. The City’s site plan review process can happen
concurrently with the review of the final development plans.
• Preliminary Plat to approve the Rosewood Commons preliminary plat creating separate lots for
the various buildings and uses and a larger outlot for future development. Please note that the
City will need to approve a final plat for specific project phases in the future.
ISSUE ANALYSIS
Legal Authority . Amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan and approval of Planned Unit
Development Master Development Plans are legislative decisions because the City is formulating public
policy. The City may amend the Comprehensive Plan after a public hearing before the Planning
Commission and a two-thirds majority vote by the City Council. These applications also require
notification to the surrounding communities and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Preliminary plat approvals, as well as rezonings, are quasi-judicial decisions for the City meaning that the
City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if these applications meet the City’s established
requirements they must be approved. Staff review of each application is provided below.
9
Overall Site Layout
The site under consideration is one portion of the property owner’s total property ownership. In all, there
are 34 acres of land within the Rosewood area still available for development. Most of the area was
designated for commercial development although over time there has been discussion of allowing some
residential in portions of the site. The initial thought was more of an independent senior housing project,
located along County Road 42, most likely adjacent to Biscayne Avenue. After the rezoning of the sites to
commercial, the City and developer have had difficulty attracting retail and services to the site. First, it was
the lack of development east of Hwy 3. Now with more of the City’s development area near Akron
Avenue the issue continues to be the density of residential development, the preferred location on
property west of Hwy 3 along County Road 42, and the future configuration of the Business
Parkway/County Road 42 intersection. In part, the inability to attract a big box retailer has left the
property more difficult to develop as an all retail commercial area. For the above reasons, the property
owner has looked to provide a mix of uses that would allow development of the site; generally keeping
some of the City desired commercial elements along Hwy 42, particularly the installation of a hotel. The
incorporation of residential allows for an improved transition from the existing neighborhood to the north
and east and changes the potential land use impacts associated with the project.
The project before the Commission is generally one-half of the land west of Business Parkway. The
project includes 4-story senior apartments with first floor enclosed parking and the hotel building. Two of
the apartments contain some commercial space on the first level, the amount, 1,600 square feet could
accommodate two small, or one larger tenant. The remainder of the building has 20 apartments. The four
northern apartments not having commercial space are anticipated to have 21 apartment units. The
applicant is planning on having the buildings age restricted. South and west of the apartments is a 79 room
3-story hotel building. The flag of the hotel has not been identified at this time.
Primary access from Business Parkway to the western development area will be through a private drive
that extends the length of the site, paralleling County Road 42. The private road makes an intersection
with 149th Street which is a public road. The drive is used for access to the development further beyond
the current proposal. West of the current proposal is approximately 15 acres which may also be residential
in the north and commercial in the south. A second access to the west is proposed further to the north,
along Business Parkway but across from current single-family development. Staff is recommending some
changes to the configuration of the intersection with Business Parkway so that traffic out of the north
access is directed south only. Given the size of the property and the amount of potential development, two
access points into the western area is reasonable.
Site Plan Review
The proposed site development plans incorporate the sharing of parking, access, and open space between
the hotel site and the senior housing buildings; therefore, the site plan review comments for both elements
of the plan are included as part of the following section.
Land Use and Zoning
Under the proposed rezoning, the senior apartment buildings will be zoned R4 – High Density Residential
while the hotel site will retain the current C4 – General Commercial zoning on the site. The boundary
between these districts will therefore not follow a street or property line but will follow a line between the
buildings on Lots 3, 4, 5 and 7 and the hotel on Lot 6. Staff is recommending that the zoning boundary
line be aligned along the centerline of the private driveways separating these uses. Overall, the PUD will
allow the applicant to create a situation in which the buildings are on separate lots while the common
areas, including parking, driveway, and open space will be owned by an association. One of the purposes
of a PUD is to allow “more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through
mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land into larger parcels” and the site plan is a good
illustration of this concept. Many of the specific zoning dimensional standards will not apply because of
10
the integration between the hotel and apartment uses; however, staff will identify any relevant zoning
district requirements in the sections that follow.
The high density residential/apartment portion of the development site is 5.5 acres in size, and the overall
net density for this part of the sites is 22.5 units per acre. This number falls well within the range of 12-40
units per acre allowed in the HDR land use category. In terms of uses, The R4 zoning district specifies
that a mixed use project can be considered by the City as a PUD, therefore, the addition of the ground-
floor commercial units as part of the apartment development is appropriate and allowed under the zoning
requirements for the site.
Building Design - H otel
The plans for the hotel call for a three-story design with a north-south orientation and direct access to the
driveway connecting Business Parkway with the future commercial uses to the west. The building will
include a covered canopy outside the main entrance, swimming pool and workout room, open lobby with
seating, small conference room/meeting space, and outdoor gathering space in addition to the 79
individual lodging rooms. Additionally, the second floor will feature a business center with access to an
outside deck covered with a metal trellis. The front entrance area will face towards the west and away
from the closest senior apartments. The applicant has indicated that they are hoping to find an existing
chain to build the hotel but have also stated that they intend to build the project on their own if one does
not come forward.
The proposed design of the building will make use of three primary materials including stone for the base
of the structure, white lap siding above the stone and under the gable ends of the roofline, and a vertical
metal panel material for the remaining portion of the exterior elevations. The massing of the building is
broken up using these different materials and a slight recessing of various segments along the east and
west elevations. The gable and hipped roof also provide some architectural interest along the roof line
while avoiding a long, unbroken view of the asphalt shingles. Comparing the proposal design to the City’s
list of permitted materials, it appears that amount of natural brick or stone used is substantially less than
required under the ordinance, which reads as follows:
11-4-14 G. 3. Permitted Materials: The exterior wall surfaces of all buildings shall be constructed of at least fifty
percent (50%) brick or natural stone. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the wall surface may be specialty integral
colored concrete block (including textured, burnished, and rock faced block), tile (masonry, stone or clay),
architectural textured concrete panels cast in place, or better. EIFS or masonry stucco may be used for the sign band
areas and/or architectural accents totaling no more than ten percent (10%) of the nonglass, brick or stone portion of
the building. Unadorned concrete is prohibited.
Staff is estimating that 15-20% of the exterior materials are natural stone compared to the ordinance
requirement of 50%. In looking back at the previous hotel approval on this site, the City did approve a
variation from the required percentages and justified this decision because a three-story hotel is expected
to have a different exterior design than a traditional single-story retail use in the C4 district. Consistent
with the previous review, staff believes the proposed design should incorporate an increased percentage of
brick or natural stone but also believes a reduced amount is acceptable given the other proposed design
elements. The overall design incorporates elements that are more residential in character, like the white lap
siding, which provides a good transition between the commercial areas to the west and the neighboring
residential uses. Staff is recommending a PUD condition that the non-glass exterior materials be at least
25% brick and stone and that the remaining materials can be lap siding, metal panels, or other materials
consistent with the ordinance. The proposed condition allows staff to administratively approve the final
building elevations in compliance with the City Code and the PUD standards for the exterior materials.
11
Building Design – Senior Apartments
The six proposed senior apartment buildings will all share an identical floor plan and exterior design, with
the only difference being two of the buildings closest to the hotel (Lots 5 and 7) will have ground floor
retail space while the other four will utilize this space for an additional residential unit. The applicant has
indicated this available space may also include another garage space. Staff does not support the additional
garage space independent of the lower level garage because a new access is needed, which is undesirable.
The buildings will be oriented so that the main entrance will be located along the north-south driveway
between the hotel and apartment area, and each will face green space on the interior of each block with
parking and drive aisles around the other side. There will be no direct access to Business Parkway for any
of the buildings, and all such access will occur at either the main entrance driveway across from 149th
Street West or the reduced access driveway north of Brenner Court.
The design of the buildings is somewhat unique and is heavily influenced by the decision to utilize most of
the ground level for interior parking. By utilizing ground floor parking, the applicant can reduce the
surface parking needed to accommodate the apartments while finishing the first floor in a way to reduce
the visual impact of the parking area. Parking below the ground elevation is not feasible in this situation
due to the size of the buildings and their minimal setbacks to the interior drive aisles. For the buildings
that will have retail on the ground level, the retail space will face outwards towards an adjacent driveway.
Each building will have 20 units of housing, with 8 units on the second and third floors and 4 units on the
fourth floor. The four northern buildings will include one unit on the ground level first floor. The units
will be a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units, and based on the initial floor layout submitted by the
applicant, the breakdown will be 6 three-bedroom units, 6 two-bedroom units and 8 one-bedroom units in
each building, which some having an additional first floor two or three-bedroom unit. Overall, the project
will have 36 three bedroom, 36 two-bedroom and 48 one-bedroom apartments plus the ground floor
apartments. In addition to the private residential space, each building will include a lobby area, office
space, trash and recycling area with a roof deck on the fourth floor overlooking the common open space
between each building. In order to accommodate a roof deck, the fourth-floor units will only occupy
about half of the area on the fourth level, with other portion remaining open or housing a small common
space area, elevator shaft, and stairwells.
The exterior design and materials for each of the senior apartment buildings is generally consistent with
the City’s approval of similar buildings within planned development. The applicant is proposing a mixture
of fiber cement shakes/siding and masonry/stone veneer for most of the building elevations, with lesser
use of fiber cement board and batten siding, fiber cement trim, metal railings, and metal for trim for
secondary surface areas. Staff expected that the buildings without a commercial storefront will likely
eliminate the metal canopy and aluminum storefront for materials more consistent with the other
residential units. Because the submitted plans do not include a detailed breakdown of the percentage of
each material used, staff is recommending a condition of approval that no more than 60% of all exterior
elevations can be lap or shake siding to be consistent with other recent multi-family PUD approvals. Each
of the units will have access to a small balcony on the exterior of the building, with some of the second-
floor apartments able to take advantage of space above the garage. The building’s design incorporates
undulations and variation in each of the side elevations while ensuring that all four sides use a similar
design composition and use materials. Half of the roof is flat while the other half is a hipped and gable
design with asphalt singles to mimic a typical residential structure.
12
The overall concept for the project, including the hotel, is to provide an “urban village” feel with buildings
close to the street (or private driveways in this case), with sidewalks, traffic bump-outs, accessible green
space, and parallel parking to help promote walkability throughout the area. The proposed design should
help the project better integrate with the adjacent residential neighborhood and keeping most of the
vehicular movements and parking within the interior portions of the site. Overall, the design of the hotel
and apartment area addressed the PUD standards for providing a unique and unified development that
could not otherwise be built under standard zoning regulations.
Building Heights
One of the PUD deviations requested by the applicant is the ability to construct buildings that exceed the
minimum height requirement of 35 feet in the C4 and R4 zoning district. Each of the buildings as
proposed would have the following maximum height:
• Hotel – 40 feet (5 feet above maximum)
• Senior Apartments – 49 feet 5 inches. (14 feet 5 inches above maximum)
Focusing on the Hotel, the additional height has been requested in order to allow 10-foot tall floors for all
three levels, which then means the lowest portion of the roof line starts at 30 feet above the ground
elevation. Because the hotel will include space that benefits from higher ceilings, including the pool,
lobby, and business center, staff is supportive of the request for additional height up to 40 feet for the
hotel. The hotel is also situated in the central portion of the development and will have a minimal impact
on future adjacent land uses.
The senior apartment buildings are planned with a higher overall height at just under 50 feet, well above
the R4 district requirement of 35 feet. The applicant is requesting a deviation from the zoning standard in
order to provide space above the ground level parking garage while still having three floors for apartment
units. The proposed design also allows the building to accommodate a roof deck overlooking the
common open space with living space on the fourth level as well. Although the additional height near the
existing single-family homes is a drawback to the proposed design, staff has found there are some benefits
to the unique design compared to a typical three-story apartment complex with parking underground. The
three-story apartment that have been approved recently (including Wexford Place) tend to be larger
buildings that extend longer distances along the adjacent streets for a full three stories. By adding the
additional height and constructing fewer units in each building, the applicant can provide much more open
space between buildings and help minimize the total mass of the structures on the site and minimize the
number of windows facing the street.
Another aspect of the applicant’s proposal that may help reduce the overall impact of the apartment
building height is that the upper-most level only includes half the number of apartments as on the second
and third level, leaving the remainder of the roof open, at least as viewed from the ground level. The side
of the senior apartment buildings facing east towards the single-family area is roughly 76 feet in width, and
of that, about half of this elevation reaches the full 49+ feet in height. The remainder of the roof line is
flat and no higher than 35 feet (not including the proposed portico, stairwells, and landing area that are all
set back from the roof line. The applicant has also proposed a more extensive landscaping treatment of
overstory trees along Business Parkway and will be planting trees that should come close to matching the
height of the apartment buildings when they reach full maturity. With the building design, open space
between buildings, and proposed landscaping staff believes the PUD with additional building height does
allow for a better alternative to the type of building that would be built under the City’s conventional
zoning.
13
The applicant has provided a cross section view of a senior apartment building in relation to the adjacent
street and a typical single-family home with appropriate setbacks. The drawing is intended to provide a
little better sense of the scale and distance between the existing single-family homes and proposed
apartments. This drawing does not include the more recent revisions to the ground level adjacent to each
building, but does provide an illustration of the overall height difference between the apartments and
neighboring single-family homes.
Please note that staff has done a quick survey of several surrounding communities, many of which specify
maximum building heights of 45 feet or more in their high-density residential zoning districts. In order to
achieve densities above 20 units per acre (and Rosemount’s zoning allows up to 40 units per acre in R4
districts) the additional height often is necessary.
Building Setbacks
The zoning regulations concerning setbacks within the C4 zoning district do not apply to the proposed
PUD, which, by definition, allows a mix of uses and activities on a development site that would not
otherwise be possible under the base zoning standards. The same logic applies to the apartment buildings
that have been specifically designed to be constructed with a minimal setback to the internal drive aisles.
One area that should be considered is the R4 district setback from Business Parkway since this is the
portion of the site abutting an adjacent neighborhood. Under the R4 requirements, the minimum setback
to the street is 30 feet, whereas the proposed apartment buildings will either meet the setback or be
setback further than the minimum. Specifically, the southernmost apartment building is setback 30 feet
from the public road right-of-way, while all buildings further north are set back at least 40 from the road.
The southern setback is less than the others, partially because the road widens in this location to
accommodate a turn lane into the commercial area, so the building is not any closer to a residential
property than any others in the development. At the far north end of the site, the applicant’s property
directly abuts a single-family lot, but the apartment building is set back nearly 80 feet from this lot.
Parking and Access
Access to both the apartment area and hotel site occurs at two locations along Business Parkway via
private driveways. The southern access will allow two-way traffic and full turning movements while the
northern access will be restricted to right or left turns in, but only right turns out (3/4 access). All access
drives, with the exception of the first 150 feet of the southern segment, will have either parallel, 90 degree,
or angled parking immediately off of the driving lanes. At staff’s direction, all parking off of the north-
south driveway between the apartments and hotel was changed to angled parking in order to provide
better traffic movement along the primary connector road within the project area (90 degree parking is
rarely used along a more heavily-traveled road). Staff also recommended no parking along the first
segment of the southern east-west road in order avoid traffic conflicts at the main commercial entrance.
14
The applicant has provided a parking analysis for the site using the requirements found in the City’s
parking standards. Because the parking will be available for all users on the site, the analysis does not look
at each building individually, but rather combines all required parking for the separate uses to determine an
overall number. The combined parking analysis is an appropriate use of the flexibility provided by a PUD.
Due to some modifications to the site plan since the initial application submittal, some of the applicant’s
numbers need to be updated to reflect the most recent version of the development plans. The updated
numbers are as follows:
Use Units/Area Standard Required
Parking
Apartment 124 2 per unit 248
Retail 3,600 Sq Ft 5 per 1,000 Sq Ft 18
Hotel 79 Rooms + 6 Staff 1 per room +
1 per Staff
85
Open Space/Park 0
Total Required 351
Interior Parking Provided(Apartments) 122
Surface Parking Provided 245
Total Provided 367
Above Individual Use Minimum (Surplus) 16
Overall, the parking provided exceeds the minimum that would be required for each use individually under
the base zoning requirements. The parking stalls are concentrated around the hotel site, but the applicant
has worked with staff on some revisions to provide additional surface parking closer to each of the
residential buildings. By meeting and exceeding the City’s parking standards for each individual use, the
parking is not expected to spill over into the residential neighborhood or create any problems for each
building.
Landscaping
The applicant has provided a landscape plan in addition to the other required submissions. The following
chart compares the landscaping provide compared to the City’s landscape ordinance for each of the
underlying zoning districts and land uses:
Landscaping Requirement Comparison
Type Size/Units Standard Required Proposed Status
Trees (R4) 124 units 1 tree / unit. 124
Trees (C4) 90,000 Sq Ft 1 tree / 3,000 Sq Ft 30
Total Trees - - 154 135 19 Short
Foundation
Plantings 3,054 Ft 1 planting/10 linear
feet of building 305 290 15 Short
Parking Area
Landscape
Need to
Calculate 5% landscaping Need
Calculation
Parking Area
Trees
Need to
Calculate 1 tree/250 sq. ft. Need
Calculation
Staff also was not able to complete a review of the parking lot landscaping, and the applicant will need to
update the plans to take the City’s requirements for interior parking lot landscaping into account. The site
plan includes several landscape islands and bump-outs within parking areas, and generally appears that it
would meet the City’s minimum size requirements for such areas. Because the City also requires trees in
parking lot landscape areas, additional trees will need to be planted in these areas as well.
15
Overall, the landscape plan falls somewhat short of meeting the City’s minimum planting requirements,
and staff is recommending a condition of approval that the ordinance standards be met in terms of the
minimum number of overstory trees, foundation plantings, and parking lot trees. Based on the Planning
Commission recommendation, the conditions of approval have been updated to allow a PUD exception to
reduce the required plantings by 10. Staff has also noted that the plans include the planting of ash trees
which is not recommended due to potential issues with the emerald ash borer disease and the long-term
viability of this species of tree. An updated landscape plan will need to remove ash from the tree planting
list. There are no existing trees on the site; therefore, no replacement trees are required.
Sidewalks and Trails
The proposed development plans depict sidewalks along both sides of all access drives. All proposed
buildings have been designed to mimic a downtown feel by moving them up to the edge of the sidewalk,
which is intended to promote walkability along these corridors. All buildings also have walkways
separating parking lots from the buildings and have direct connections to all entrances. There are
currently sidewalks on both sides of Business Parkway and one side of 149th Street West, and the
applicant’s site will tie into the existing sidewalk system at each driveway entrance. Although the individual
uses (and especially the hotel) will still be dependent on cars for the vast majority of their business, the
proposed sidewalk system and building layout should create a more pedestrian friendly environment than a
typical commercial project.
Signage
The applicant has not provided any information about joint signage for the project, and will need to meet
the ordinance standards for signage on the individual buildings. A freestanding sign at the intersection of
Business Parkway and 150th Street West will likely be requested when the future commercial areas within
Rosewood Estates are developed.
Overall Site Issues
Utilities and Stormwater Management
The site is served by existing public utilities that will need to be extended to the various buildings within
the project. The public utilities available in Business Parkway are large enough to provide adequate service
to the current proposal as well as future phases anticipated west of the current project.
From a stormwater standpoint, this site has several regional ponds that take drainage from outside of the
project area. When the ponds were first designed, they met standards at that time. Unfortunately,
regulations have changed, and additional storage would be needed when the entire site is developed.
During this interim development the existing system is functional and will not adversely affect existing
properties. The City’s consulting engineer has reviewed the in-place system upon full development with
could require some additional ponding. One option is to provide a second connection to the pond south
of County Road 42, within the Rosemount business park and use additional capacity in that pond.
However, it presently doesn’t have an outlet which depending upon timing of full development, may
prompt the need for another temporary pond further to the south. The other option, again, upon full site
development would be to purchase additional land for regional ponding. The cost of the additional
ponding would be credited to the developer and purchased through the City’s stormwater fund. It is
unclear that the final determination needs to be made now, when only about 1/3 of the entire
landholdings will be developed under this application. However, a final determination will need to be made
if future development occurs to the south, or additional development occurs within this larger site. The
applicant has provided several regional ponds and there is a stormwater credit they will receive with
approval of this site.
16
Traffic Study
A study was conducted because Business Parkway (148th Street, Blanca) functions like a neighborhood
collector through the Rosewood neighborhood. While it is assumed much of the commercial traffic will
come and go to the south, via Business Parkway to County Road 42, there is concern about traffic
traversing through the neighborhood. New residents may enter or exit the neighborhood from the north,
in an attempt to bypass signal lights at County Road 42 and Hwy 3. At present, it appears that Business
Parkway carries traffic within an acceptable range 640 (at 149th Street). However, it is not possible to
obtain representative traffic counts further to the north due to irregular traffic patterns caused by COVID.
It would be reasonable to assume traffic is currently higher at the southern and northern portions of the
road as there are several residential streets that empty unto the Business Parkway/148th Street/Blanca.
The Traffic Study assessed the trip generation of the proposal versus the previous big box/all commercial
site plan previously anticipated. The study found that there are slightly less trips generated by the current
proposal than the previous. There is an approximate 10% reduction in the AM and PM peaks and about a
7.5% decrease in total weekday trips. The study takes into account the concept plan for the entire site, not
just the components currently under review. The Study also considers the apartments as senior apartments.
From a traffic perspective the current proposal is reasonable given that the senior apartments are 62% of
the total apartments estimated along with the hotel use. That totals 85 AM Peak, 88 PM Peak, and 1121
average daily trips. Staff would recommend that any further development in the western portion of the
Rosewood properties conduct a new traffic study to benchmark the existing traffic volumes and determine
impacts when new development would occur.
Staff is aware that there have been concerns by the neighborhood about the location of the northern
access into the project. When it was anticipated that all site development would be commercial, the goal
was to shift access south, away from existing residential development. The assumption also was that most
regional, versus local, shoppers would use County Road 42 to come to the site, rather than travel through
the neighborhood. With the residential land use proposed it makes sense to have a second access into the
site. From a spacing standpoint, the proposed location makes sense as it separates commercial users from
the new residents. The residential land use does reduce the traffic generation as compared to commercial.
However, due to increased traffic concerns, and the desire to direct most traffic to the south, staff has
recommended that a restricted ¾ turn be installed at the northern access.
Updated Traffic Study
While the results of the initial traffic 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
17
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.
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.
18
Parks and Open Space
The City’s subdivision ordinance requires all new developments (both residential and commercial) to
dedicate a percentage of the overall subdivision area for public park purposes. The City may also elect to
accept a fee in lieu of land dedication when development occurs in an area that is not planned for any
public parks. In this case, the Parks and Recreation Director has reviewed the proposed subdivision and
indicated that there are no planned City parks in the area within or surrounding the subject property and
no land was dedicated for the outlots within the Rosewood Estates subdivision; therefore, the City is
requesting a fee in lieu of land dedication for the project. The required dedication is 10% of the land area,
and the City’s fee schedule identifies the required cash in lieu of land at $90,000 per acre for a commercial
subdivision and $2,500 per unit for high density housing. The total cash in lieu of land dedication for the
entire development (without the memory care component) is as follows:
• Commercial: 2.1 acres x $90,000 x 10% = $18,900
• High Density Residential: 124 units x $2,500 = $310,000
The applicant may either pay this entire fee in one payment or may pay the fee with the issuance of each
individual building permit within subdivision on a prorated basis.
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat takes advantage of the City’s PUD regulations to allow a subdivision with common
ownership of the open areas, parking lots, and driveway around each building. A final plat must be
approved for each phase of the project prior to construction of any buildings.
Phasing
The development plans include a phasing plan indicating that the memory care facility, hotel, and two
senior apartments would be the first buildings constructed. A northern four senior apartments would be
phase two and constructed later.
Lighting
The proposed lighting plan includes a mix of pole lights along drive aisles and within parking lots and
building lights on the exterior of each building. A photometric plan has been submitted in conjunction
with the other plans and illustrate that the project and all lighting will meet the City’s requirements for
minimizing the intensity of light at the project boundaries.
Other Engineering Comments. The Engineering department has reviewed the PUD development
plans, and 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.
19
DRAFT PUD FINDINGS (HOTEL/SENIOR APARTMENTS)
According to Section 11-10-6 C.1, the planning commission and city council shall base their
recommendations and actions regarding the applicable PUD application on consideration of the items
listed below.
1. Compatibility of the proposed plan with the PUD standards and the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the PUD standards and the goals and
policies of the comprehensive plan. Generally, the comprehensive plan calls for expansion of the City’s tax base and
promoting the creation of new jobs within the community and encourages the development of commercial property
along major traffic corridors like County Highway 42. The development of senior housing near downtown
Rosemount is also supported by the following housing goals from the City’s housing plan:
a. Disperse high density residential in appropriate areas throughout the community to provide mixed
residential density neighborhoods and lifecycle housing opportunities.
b. Differing housing opportunities should provide variation in housing style and price point for residents
c. Locate high density residential with access to the collector and arterial street network.
d. Locate high density residential in conjunction with Downtown and the commercial areas along County
Road 42 to create mixed use neighborhoods and transit-oriented districts.
e. Provide opportunities for seniors to live near their children and families.
2. Effect of the proposed plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located. Finding: The proposed
development has been designed to provide a buffer between the existing single-family residential neighborhood and the
planned higher density housing and commercial uses to the west. The arrangement of the senior housing buildings
provides opportunities for additional open space and for screening that would otherwise not be possible with a typical
multifamily building. The PUD allows for an arrangement of buildings, driveways, and parking areas that are
intended to promote walkability and pedestrian access. The plans provide a substantial amount of separation
between the commercial parking areas and adjacent single-family areas.
3. Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities, circulation and parking facilities,
public facilities, recreation areas, open spaces, screening and landscaping. Finding: the site’s
organization and layout are designed to accommodate a series of six senior apartment buildings and hotel that will
share a common private road system and use shared driveways and parking between all buildings. The shared road
and driveways will provide adequate maneuvering for vehicle and trucks entering and exiting the site while
minimizing the overall amount of impervious surfaces on the site and providing more green space, landscape areas,
and required storm water ponding facilities. The northern access driveway has been designed as a limited access
intersection that will minimize the amount of cars heading north into an existing single-family nieghborgood.
Parking and landscaping will be required to meet the City’s minimum requirements
4. Consistency with the standards of section 11-10-3 of this chapter pertaining to site and building
plan review. Finding: The proposed development meets or exceeds the development standards for the C4 and R4
districts with the noted PUD exceptions. The overall building area, lot coverage, and expected traffic are all
consistent with development in the City’s commercial and high density residential districts. The traffic study
performed for the proposed development indicates that the existing, adjacent road network will be able to
accommodate the expected traffic from the development.
5. Such other factors as the planning commission or city council deems relevant.
20
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided by the applicant and reviewed in the current and the previous staff
report, staff and the Planning Commission 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 in
the appropriate resolutions of approval.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-XX
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO REGUIDE 5.5 ACRES OF THE ROSEWOOD COMMONS SITE
FROM CC-COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO HDR-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL.
WHEREAS, KJ Walk, Inc. is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment concerning property
located immediately west of Business Parkway and approximately 400 feet north of County Road 42
within the City of Rosemount as illustrated on the attached Exhibit “A” and legally described as
follows
Part of Outlot D and Outlot E, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing and reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use of 5.5 acres of
property from CC-Community Commercial to HDR-High Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2020, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendations; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use of 5.5 acres of property
from CC-Community Commercial to HDR-High Density Residential, subject to the approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-XXX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
Rosewood Commons
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled “City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance,” is hereby amended to rezone property from C-4 General Commercial PUD to R-4 High
Density Residential PUD that is located immediately west of Business Parkway and approximately 400
feet north of County Road 42 within the City of Rosemount as illustrated on the attached Exhibit “A”
and legally described as follows:
Part of Outlot D and Outlot E, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said
Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled “Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,” shall not be
republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning
map on file in the Clerk’s office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for
in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby
incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 5th day of October, 2020.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING AND FINAL PUD PLAN FOR
ROSEWOOD CROSSING
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received a
request for a Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning and Final PUD
Plan from KJ Walk, Inc., concerning property legally described as:
Outlots D, E, and F, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020 the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing, reviewed the PUD Master Development Plan with Rezoning and Final PUD Plans for
Rosewood Commons, and tabled the request to continue its review at a future meeting; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2020 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
PUD Master Development Plan with Rezoning and Final PUD Plans for Rosewood Commons,
subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2020 the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan and Final PUD Plans
for Rosewood Commons and the Rezoning from C4-PUD General Commercial Planned Unit
Development to HDR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development and C4-PUD
General Commercial Planned Unit Development, subject to:
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. A deviation from City Code Section 11-6-3 (B) to allow 10 less than the minimum
number of overstory tree plantings required in the R4 and C4 zoning districts.
e.Establishment of a private association or designated owner of Lot 8, Block 1 to assume
responsibility for maintenance of all common areas, including private roadways, shared
driveways, storm water retention ponds, and landscaping.
f.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.
g.No more than 60% of all exterior elevations for the senior apartments may be lap or
shake siding.
h.A privacy partition shall be added to all exterior balconies between dwelling units.
i.The landscape plan shall be revised to include some deciduous overstory trees along
Business Parkway while maintaining a predominately mix of evergreen trees along this
street, 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
RESOLUTION 2020-
2
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.
j.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.
k.Payment of all required area and connection charges consistent with the Engineering
memo.
l.Reimbursement of all City expenses associated with the preparation of traffic studies
concerning the development.
m.Incorporation of recommendations from the Building Official/Fire Chief in a review
memorandum dated June 23, 2020.
n.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.
o. 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.
p. Construction traffic shall be restricted to Business Parkway south of 149
th Street and
shall avoid travelling through adjacent residential neighborhoods east and northeast of
the development site.
q. Submission of a phasing plan for the development that includes the installation of
landscaping on the eastern portion of the site within the first phase that are outside areas
to be regraded in future project phases.
ADOPTED this 5th day of October 2020 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-XX
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ROSEWOOD COMMONS
WHEREAS, KJ Walk, Inc. (Applicant) has submitted applications to the City of Rosemount for a
Preliminary Plat concerning property legally described as follows:
That part of Government Lot 2 and the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Outlots D, E, and F, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commons; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary
Plat for Rosewood Commons, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2020, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendations and the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commons.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat for Rosewood Commons, subject to the following conditions:
1.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.
2.All easements as requested by city shall be documented on the final plat.
ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
1
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS
ROSEWOOD COMMONS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DECLARATION made this ______ day of _________________, 2020, by KJ Walk,
Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Declarant”);
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described as follows and hereby
made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Subject Property”): Outlots D, E,
and F, Rosewood Estates, Dakota County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions
imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) in connection with the
approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a mixed use
high density residential and commercial development on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by
the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the
development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject
Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use
characteristics of such proposed use, the master development plan planned unit development would
not have been approved; and
2
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan planned unit
development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the “Declaration”); and
WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit
development, Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held,
transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
hereinafter set forth.
1.The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following
documents, plans and drawings:
a.City Resolution No. 2020-XX, Attachment One
b.Overall Site Development Plan (Sheet 1 of 6), Attachment Two
c.Preliminary Plat (Sheet 2 of 6), Attachment Three
d.Grading and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet 3 of 6), Attachment Four
e.Utility Plan (Sheet 4 of 6), Attachment Five
f.Site Plan (Sheet 5 of 6), Attachment Six
g.Landscape Plan (Sheet 6 of 6), Attachment Seven
h.Senior Living and Mixed-Use Apartment Exterior Elevations (A2.0-A2.2),
Attachment Eight
i.Hotel Floor Plans (A1.0-A1.3), Attachment Nine
j.Hotel Exterior Elevations (A4.0), Attachment Ten
k.Lighting Plan, Attachment Eleven
3
All of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part
hereof.
2.Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall
conform to the following standards and requirements:
a.Maintenance of the stormwater basin, infiltration basin and associated
stormwater infrastructure associated with the subject property necessary for the long term
operation and function will be performed by the City. All other maintenance including but
not limited to garbage collection, or landscape replacement or the like shall be the
responsibility of the of the private property owners. All maintenance of the stormwater
basin and infiltration basin shall be the responsibility of the City after the basins have been
established.
b.Maintenance and replacement of trees and landscaping other than that
associated with the stormwater basin and infiltration basin described in standard a. shall be
the responsibility of the adjoining homeowners’ association.
c.No more than 60% of all exterior elevations for the senior apartments may
be lap or shake siding.
3.The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs
1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council of an
amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that permits
such other development and use.
4.In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the following
deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved:
4
a.Section 11-4-14 F.10.a C-4 District Maximum Building Height: The
maximum building height for the hotel structure shall be 40 feet.
b.Section 11-4-9 F.8.a R-4 District Maximum Building Height: The
maximum building height for the senior apartment/mixed use structures shall be 50 feet.
b.Section 11-4-14 G.3 C-4 District Permitted Materials: The exterior
surfaces of the hotel shall be a minimum of 25% brick or natural stone.
c.Section 11-6-3 B Minimum Number of Plantings: The minimum number
of plantings shall be 144 (114 High Density Residential, 30 Commercial), or 10 less than
required.
In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the
requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances.
5.This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions provides only the Subject Property
only master development plan planned unit development approval. Prior to the improvement or
development of the Subject Property, beyond the rough grading, a final development plan planned
unit development approval pursuant to Zoning Code Section 11-10-6 C. 5. of the Subject Property is
required and an addendum filed with County Recorder to this Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions.
6.The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject
Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of
Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by
a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected by
said amendment.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or representatives of
Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written.
DECLARANT
KJ Walk, Inc.
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _________, 2020,
by _____________________, the _________________, for and on behalf of
_________________________, a ____________________, by and on behalf of said
_______________________.
_______________________________
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
2875 145TH STREET WEST
ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068
651-423-4411
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"
\\Burnsville4\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 one hotel (79 units) and six senior housing apartments (124 units). 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 eastbound on CSAH 42 would need to take after exiting the Rosewood Commons
Development.
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 anticipated 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
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
June 23, 2020
PAGE 1
I. Regular Meeting
Call to Order:
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 23, 2020.
Chair Kenninger called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Freeman, Reed, Schmisek, Marlow and
Rivera. VanderWiel was absent. Also, in attendance were Community Development Director Lindquist, Senior Planner
Klatt, Planner Nemcek, Engineer Erickson, Assistant Engineer Smith and Recording Specialist Bodsberg.
The Pledge of Allegiance was said.
Additions to Agenda: None.
Audience Input: None.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of the May 26, 2020, Regular Meeting Minutes.
MOTION by Reed.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0.
Public Hearing:
5.a. Request by KJ Walk, Inc. for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development Master
Development and Final Site and Building Plan, and Preliminary and Final Plat Approval (Simple Plat) associated with the
Rosewood Commons hotel, senior living mixed use, and memory care development. (20-30-PUD, 20-35-SP, 20-26-
RZ, 20-37-CP)
Senior Planner Klatt gave a summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission. Klatt noted that the applicant has
withdrawn the memory care portion of the application.
Commissioner Reed questioned if this area has always been zoned for commercial. Klatt stated that when the entire area
was initially platted and approved by the City it was zoned for residential but then about three years after the initial
approval, in 2004, it was changed to commercial for the zoning and guide plan.
Chair Kenninger inquired if the north entrance will be a right in and right out. Klatt stated that the current plans show a
¾ entrance so that you can go left or right into the site, and right but no left from the northern access.
Commissioner Schmisek inquired about the position of the apartment buildings and the amount of privacy to the
existing neighboring homes. Klatt stated that the applicant has the majority of the units facing into the adjacent green
space. There is one unit in each of the buildings on the side that faces toward the single family homes.
Commissioner Reed questioned if the primary traffic for the hotel would use 149th Street. Klatt stated that would be
anticipated.
Chair Kenninger inquired if it would be possible to dead end Business Parkway around Brenner Court area, which would
disconnect the traffic flow from this development and the current neighborhoods. Klatt stated that staff would not
recommend disconnecting the streets. It would alter access to the current neighborhood and make a more unsafe
condition for the existing and future neighborhoods.
Commissioner Reed inquired if the City could require the applicant to add additional buffers, like trees, and bushes, on
adjacent residential lots. Klatt stated that is not usually a requirement that the City would make. Kenninger inquired if
the resident was okay with having the trees planted on their lot would that tree be able to count for the developer’s tree
count. Lindquist stated that staff would be uncomfortable requiring mitigation off site, on someone else’s property. We
would want to place the screening on the developer’s property, in part, to ensure it is maintained.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
June 23, 2020
PAGE 2
Commissioner Freeman stated that Colorado Blue Spruce is not recommended for Minnesota landscape. A different
evergreen tree should be selected.
Commissioner Rivera questioned why the developer selected to not have underground parking. Klatt stated that it is
because of the scale of the building and the proximity to the street meaning that they can’t get enough slope to go under
the building.
Commissioner Marlow inquired if the apartment balconies will include a privacy wall. Klatt stated that we will direct that
question to the applicant. Chair Kenninger stated that she likes the privacy wall idea on the balconies.
Commercial Reed inquired what the difference is between senior apartments versus regular apartments. Klatt stated that
there will be an age restriction of 55 years and older.
Commissioner Marlow inquired if the north west corner of the development would include an apartment building in that
area. Klatt stated that they do have a future plan that does include future expansion of apartments but that is not
included in tonight’s item.
Chair Kenninger inquired what the point of a traffic study would be when the western development proposal comes
forward to the Planning Commission. Klatt stated that the study would call out any needed improvements to the road
system. The project tonight would be built and the study would benefit from understanding what is currently occurring
at the site.
The public hearing opened at 8:07 pm.
Public Comments:
Chair Kenninger read resident letters that staff had received before the meeting.
Warren Israelson, KJ Walk, Inc, stated that without the access on the north, he could turn that area into a parking lot
and cut off that access. He noted that underground parking and the height of the building goes together. The orientation
of the buildings would have to change in order to have the underground parking. The apartments would then overlook
the current neighborhood. They would like to have a high-quality apartment complex that is why they put an age
restriction of 55. They selected to do the smaller buildings in order to have a neighborhood feeling. He stated that he
likes the idea of the wall on the decks. He noted that the staff report mentioned he doesn’t have enough landscaping and
they will need to be looked at where another 100 trees can be placed throughout the development.
Chair Kenninger inquired as to why the proposed apartments include three bedrooms. Mr. Israelson stated that the third
bedroom is more for an office or den. The age group that the apartments are for will most likely be coming from a larger
home and downsizing. Kenninger stated that the top floor has four apartments and if they make the building a little
wider, they could incorporate those apartments into the bottom floors and eliminate the top floor. Israelson stated that
they could look into that design.
Commissioner Rivera inquired what the retail will entail. Mr. Israelson stated that they do not have tenants for the retail.
Commissioner Schmisek stated that he is impressed with the thought and planning that has gone in to the proposed
development to minimize the impact on the current residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Rivera questioned what chain the hotel will be. Mr. Israelson stated that they do not have one in mind
and it will be shopped around.
Andy Dosdall, 14803 Blanca Ave, inquired why the hotel is being located at this site, knowing that a hotel can bring in
people that can make a lot of noise, how will that be maintained. Community Development Director Lindquist stated
that a hotel is in demand for the city and the City has been working to attract one for several years. The location at Hwy
3 and County Road 42 is a prime commercial corner for the community. The noise ordinance is in place which can be
enforced at the hotel site.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
June 23, 2020
PAGE 3
Kathryn DeWolfe, 2662 148th Street West, stated that in conjunction with the traffic study, was a study done in regard to
the trains that stop on the railroad tracks for sometimes 10-15 minutes without moving. With a good portion of the
project being senior living, there will be an increased need for emergency vehicles needed to reach them. With angled
parking within the development, how will a car turn around if the parking spaces are filled and someone sees one on the
opposite side? Where business parkway and 148th street meet, residents on both sides of that corner use the street
parking when they have guests. Currently it’s a blind corner and there is an increased possibility of accidents when cars
are parked on both sides of the intersection. Lindquist stated that the senior living building is an age restricted, and a
market rate project. There will be no services offered. Klatt stated that the traffic study didn’t look into the train impact
in this area. The impact caused by the trains is a wide spread issue throughout the community. He noted there are
currently no parking restrictions on the surrounding streets.
Wayne Sisel, 14883 Brenner Court, questioned if a berm would be possible along the tree line, in between the
development and the current residential neighborhood. Mr. Israelson stated that a berm would be a possibility.
William & Maria Mojica, 2717 148th Street West, inquired if there would be a fence line in addition to the tree line. Mr.
Israelson stated that he would be more in a favor of adding additional hedges versus adding a fence.
MOTION by Schmisek to close the public hearing.
Second by Marlow.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes
The public hearing was closed at 8:50 pm.
Additional Comments:
Commissioner Schmisek stated that he is excited for this project and the plans. But he would like to see some things
worked out and would like to see this project continued until our next meeting.
Commissioner Reed stated that he agrees with Commissioner Schmisek. He is in favor of the project but would like to
see some of the logistics worked out.
Commissioner Freeman stated that there are too many outstanding issues that need to be worked out and would like to
continue this item.
Chair Kenninger stated that she appreciates the developer’s flexibility with the surrounding neighborhood but would like
to see the item continued to work out the details. A large concern lies with the height of the buildings. She would like to
eliminate the access into the neighborhood at the curve. That would eliminate the additional traffic that could potentially
go through the neighborhood. If this item continues Kenninger would like to see what the signage would look like, a
phasing plan, and timeline of construction. The construction traffic would also need to be addressed.
MOTION by Reed to continue the request until the July 28, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting in order to provide
the applicant with additional time to:
a. Update the landscape plan to bring in into conformance with the zoning ordinance.
b. Revise all development drawings to reflect the update parking and driveway layout for the hotel
and apartment area.
c. Provide additional information about the visual impact of the apartment buildings.
d. Address other concerns from the Planning Commission and public.
Second by Schmisek.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes
5 minutes recess until 9:06pm
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 22, 2020
PAGE 2
Old Business:
6.a. Request by KJ Walk, Inc. for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development and
Final Site and Building Plan, and Preliminary Plat approval associated with the Rosewood Commons hotel and senior
living mixed use development. (20-30-PUD, 20-35-SP, 20-36-RZ, 20-37-CP)
Senior Planner Klatt gave a summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission.
Chair Kenninger stated that she is a resident of this neighborhood and will be directly affected by the proposed
development. The height of the buildings are high and the neighborhood would prefer a smaller foot print building. The
proposed berm does help so that the buildings don’t seem as high. Kenninger continued that she thought it was agreed
upon to have partitions on the decks that at least faced the road. This would provide the apartment residents privacy and
the neighboring homes privacy as well. The access to the development seems to be the biggest issue. The proposed
access creates a layout so that the road is in the backyards of single family homes. She stated that she would be in favor
of a right in and right out of the development.
Jake Bongard, Bolten & Mink, explained that the scale of anticipated traffic is 70 to 75 trips during busy hours. For ease
of access there needs to be two lefts out of the development and a second access once the development is complete.
Chair Kenninger inquired as to why the tree type was changed and staff’s thoughts on this. Kenninger also inquired
about the first phase landscape plan. She would like to see a condition added to say that construction vehicles have to
use 149th or Business Parkway and not drive through the neighborhood. Klatt stated that staff could tweak the condition
to have the evergreens on the outside to provide more screening.
Warren Israelson, stated that he has no problem adjusting the screening on the apartment decks. The phasing will be
building 7 and then 5. The landscaping will be completed with each building. For subsequent phases they may move to
the hotel or move onto the next buildings 2 and 4. He explained that it just depends on the market when that time
comes.
Chair Kenninger read a letter that was received by a neighbor, Mike and Jean Brown, stating that they would like to
know if the developer would work with them to plant some trees on their property to provide screening. Mr. Israelson
stated that he needs to put another 19 trees somewhere. He noted that if the City reduces the required number of trees
on the development, he would put them there. Klatt stated that it is difficult for the City to be okay with requiring the
developer to plant trees on someone else’s property. He stated that developer and the resident can come to an
agreement, but the City cannot require it.
Genesee Rasmussen, 2729 148th Street West, stated that privacy is very important to them. The height of the buildings is
really concerning. The traffic that would be coming in and out of the development is really concerning as they have
young children.
MOTION by VanderWiel 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 condition:
a. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
Second by Reed.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
MOTION by VanderWiel 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.
Second by Marlow.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 22, 2020
PAGE 3
MOTION by VanderWiel 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 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 as amended by the Planning Commission:
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. A deviation from City Code Section 11-6-3 (B) to allow 10 less than the minimum number of
overstory tree plantings required in the R4 and C4 zoning districts.
e. Establishment of a private association or designated owner of Lot 8, Block 1 to assume responsibility
for maintenance of all common areas, including private roadways, shared driveways, storm water
retention ponds, and landscaping.
f. 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.
g. No more than 60% of all exterior elevations for the senior apartments may be lap or shake siding.
h. A privacy partition shall be added to all exterior balconies between dwelling units.
i. The landscape plan shall be revised to include some deciduous overstory trees along Business
Parkway while maintaining a predominately mix of evergreen trees along this street, 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.
j. 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.
k. Payment of all required area and connection charges consistent with the Engineering memo.
l. Reimbursement of all City expenses associated with the preparation of traffic studies concerning the
development.
m. Incorporation of recommendations from the Building Official/Fire Chief in a review memorandum
dated June 23, 2020.
n. 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.
o. 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.
p. Construction traffic shall be restricted to Business Parkway south of 149th Street and shall avoid
travelling through adjacent residential neighborhoods east and northeast of the development site.
q. Submission of a phasing plan for the development that includes the installation of landscaping on the
eastern portion of the site within the first phase that are outside areas to be regraded in future project
phases.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
MOTION by VanderWiel to recommend the City Council approve a Planned Unit Development Final
Development Plan and Site Plan Review for four senior apartment buildings, two senior apartment buildings
with ground floor retail, and a 79-unit hotel and without a memory care facility east of Business Parkway,
subject to the following condition:
a. Compliance with all conditions associated with the PUD Master Development for Rosewood
Commons.
Second by Reed.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 22, 2020
PAGE 4
MOTION by VanderWiel 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.
Second by Marlow.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
Adjournment: There being no further business to come before this Commission, Chair Kenninger adjourned the
meeting at 8:08 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Bodsberg, Recording Specialist