Croix Bay Proposal

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING DATE: April 4, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-013 City Council: March 22, 2016

Planning Commission: March 9, 2016 APPLICANT: Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group, and Darren Lazan,

Landform REQUEST: Consideration of a Planning Commission recommendation of approval for

a concept Shoreland Planned Unit Development, Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendments for Northland Senior Living, a proposed 50 acre, multi-use Senior Care Living Facility to be located at 12525 and 12721 75th Street North and 12520 72nd Street North, currently located in the LR and AP Zoning Districts

ZONING: LR (Lakeshore Residential) and AP (Agricultural Preservation COMP PLAN: LDR (Low Density Residential) and PROS (Parks, Recreation and

Open Space) PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND At the last regularly-scheduled City Council meeting the Council held a public hearing regarding the aforementioned request. The Council took public testimony and, without discussion, continued the hearing. Attached are the materials distributed to the City Council for the March 22 meeting. As a reminder to the Council, the 60-day deadline for consideration of this application is April 19th.

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING DATE: March 22, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-013 Planning Commission: March 9, 2016 APPLICANT: Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group, and Darren Lazan,

Landform REQUEST: Consideration of a Planning Commission recommendation of approval for

a concept Shoreland Planned Unit Development, Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendments for Northland Senior Living, a proposed 50 acre, multi-use Senior Care Living Facility to be located at 12525 and 12721 75th Street North and 12520 72nd Street North, currently located in the LR and AP Zoning Districts

ZONING: LR (Lakeshore Residential) and AP (Agricultural Preservation COMP PLAN: LDR (Low Density Residential) and PROS (Parks, Recreation and

Open Space) PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND Brian Farrell with Northland Real Estate is planning to develop a multi-use, Senior Care Living Facility on County Road 12 just east of the Rutherford Elementary School. A total of six parcels are included in the development including 12525 and 12721 75th Street North and 12520 72nd Street North, as well as adjacent vacant lands to the east and southeast of these parcels, formerly known as Jackson Wildlife Management area. The senior care facility will be known as Croix Bay. This facility will be developed in conjunction and cooperation with multiple stakeholders, including Landform Professional Services, LLC. On March 9, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the concept development and associated applications:

1. A Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the multi-use complex which would include a variety of age-restricted living options, including memory care, assisted living, and independent living units in addition to ancillary, but on campus, institutional (Grace Baptist Church), retail (hair salon, cafe, bookstore), and service (childcare center) uses. This is an application that is required as per City Code Section 31-210.

Case No. 2016-013 (12525 75th Street North) CC: March 22, 2016 Page 2 of 5

2. A Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to modify the City Code Section 31-210(b)(6), Planned

Unit Development, as follows:

Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned property may not only exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these structures would normally be located if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.

a) Building heights on privately or commonly owned property may only exceed limits imposed by the zoning district if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.”

3. A Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to rezone 12620 72nd Street N. (PID

30.030.20.42.0004) from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Lakeshore Residential (LR).

4. A Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to rezone PID 30.030.20.42.0005 and 30.030.20.41.0040 to be rezoned from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to PROS: Parks, Recreation and Open Space.

A copy of the Planning Commission staff report and analysis of the Concept PUD, ZAT, and ZAM is attached for the Council’s review. For the Council’s consideration is a Resolution approving the concept PUD, an ordinance approving the Zoning Text Amendments, as well as an ordinance approving the Zoning Map Amendments. RELEVANT INFORMATION If the aforementioned are approved, the applicant would be able to proceed with the design work necessary to submit the following subsequent applications: Special Use Permit for a Senior Living Care Facility in the Lakeshore Residential zoning

district (Planning Commission Public Hearing Required). Special Use Permits require the review of the development in comparison with all zoning code regulations (building design, lighting, landscaping, stormwater, etc.).

Preliminary Plat for the reconfiguration of lot lines for the development (Planning Commission Public Hearing required). Preliminary Plats require the review of the development in comparison with all development regulations (road widths, park and trail dedication, access, utilities, etc.).

Final Planned Unit Development (Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearing Required). Final PUDs assess whether or not the concept is in general conformance with the concept PUD.

Final Plat for the establishment of the new lot lines. Final Plat is the last application. So long as it is in general conformance to the Preliminary Plat, the item only goes before the City Council.


Since the Planning Commission hearing, City staff has received numerous comments, including requests to table the Council’s consideration of this matter until a later date. The 60-day deadline for consideration of the development application is April 19, 2016. Staff has attached all comments received to date. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval The City Council may confirm the Planning Commission recommendation and

adopt the attached Resolution, approving the Concept PUD with the following Planning Commission conditions, move to approve the first readings of the attached Ordinances approving the Zoning Text and Zoning Map amendments.

1. The Zoning Map Amendment request shall be extended to include PID

30.030.20.42.0005 and 30.030.20.41.0040 to be rezoned as PROS: Parks, Recreation and Open Space.

2. The rezonings will not become effective nor will they be published, unless the Final PUD and Plat is approved by the City and the Final Plat is filed with Washington County for recording.

3. The density of the Final PUD will be consistent with the DNR’s analysis for tiered development in the Shoreland Management Overlay District.

4. All structures in the development shall be set back at least 40’ from the top of blufflines in the Shoreland Management Overlay District. Additionally, a 30’ setback shall be reserved from all other steep slopes.

5. The Final PUD application material must include calculations for the 25% impervious surface area for the entire development. The 25% impervious surface areas shall be delineated with the proposed Final Plat boundaries.

6. Stormwater calculations shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of Preliminary Plat.

7. A Brown’s Creek Watershed District permit shall be obtained prior to final plat approval by the City Council.

8. The main structure shall not be increased in height greater than three stories and 40’10” from the ground grade of the front of the building.

9. The ancillary structures of Grace Baptist Church and mixed use and Independent Living III shall be limited to the Lakeshore Residential Zoning District height maximums.

10. A 10% reduction in the total number of parking stalls shall be permitted in the Final PUD. The total number of stalls necessary for the development shall be determined at the time of Final PUD approval.

11. A shared parking agreement across all parcels in the Concept PUD shall be submitted with the Final PUD application materials.

12. A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved. 13. A total of 50% open space area shall be depicted on the Final PUD, and the

open space calculations must be approved the DNR. 14. The trail alignment in conformance with the Brown’s Creek Watershed

District’s wetland buffer setback, and determined acceptable by the City of Stillwater, will be submitted at the time of Final PUD submittal.


15. Public land dedication may be used to fulfill public park dedication requirements only if it is found acceptable by the Park Commission and the City Council at the time of the Preliminary/Final Plat review.

16. Public and private lake access and other recreation options shall be found to be acceptable to the City of Stillwater prior to the time of Final PUD Submittal.

17. Approval of private docking on Long Lake shall be determined prior to Final PUD submittal.

18. Determination of all conservation, drainage and utility easements shall be determined and found acceptable by the City of Stillwater prior to Final PUD submittal.

19. Copies of all covenants and easements relating to the provision, use and maintenance of common open space must be filed with the Final Plat.

20. Any access to CSAH 12 must be found acceptable to Washington County. A letter of intent from Washington County to approve the access point or points must be submitted to the City together with Final PUD and Preliminary/Final Plat application materials. In the event two accesses onto CSAH 12 cannot be constructed, the following must be submitted with Final PUD and Preliminary/Final Plat application materials: i. A $7,500 escrow for the purposes of hiring a City selected traffic

engineering consultant to do a traffic impact study. The purpose of the traffic study is to ensure the traffic generated from this mixed use campus will be able to adequately and safely enter and exit this property.

ii. A suggested future through street alignment, not necessarily contained entirely on the subject property that gives access to 72nd Street.

21. Ownership of the main access road to the project shall be determined prior to the submittal of the Final PUD.

22. The private land upon which 72nd Street North and its related improvements and drainage ditches are situated shall be platted and dedicated to the City. This shall be identified on the preliminary plat.

23. Requirements for utility connections of all existing structures shall be determined prior to the submittal of the Final PUD.

24. Utility and drainage easements shall be required over all waterbodies, the Long Lake outlet structure and pipe, and at the southwest property corner north of 72nd Street North. The exact location of the easements, found acceptable by the City Engineer, shall be depicted on all future plans and plats.

25. A tree preservation plan along the western edge of Building IL3, near the adjacent property to the west, shall be submitted at the time of Preliminary Plat.

B. Table If the City Council finds that more information or public comment is needed, it

could continue consideration of the Resolution and the first reading of the Ordinances until April 5th.


C. Denial If the City Council finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the Planned Unit Development, ZAT, and ZAM regulations, the Council could to deny the Resolution and Ordinances. The Council should indicate a reason for such action.

FINDINGS The Commission found the Concept Planned Unit Development is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the PUD provisions. Additionally, the Commission found the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and the proposed Zoning Text and Zoning amendments, including those proposed by city staff, are in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends conditional approval of the concept Planned Unit Development, ZAT, and ZAM. Staff recommends confirming the Planning Commission findings and recommendations and adopting the attached Resolution and approving the first reading of the Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative (10 pages) Concept PUD Submittal Cover Page, Aerial & Existing Conditions (4 pages) Tree Removal Concept Existing Conditions Site Analysis Site Plan Floor Plans (4 pages) Elevations (3 pages) Additional Renderings (2 pages) Phase Schedule Lot Analysis Preliminary Utility Plan

Setbacks Exhibit Public Comments Resolution ZAM Ordinance ZAT Ordinance

PLANNING REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 9, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-011 APPLICANT: Brian Farrell, Northland Real Estate Group, and Darren Lazan, Landform REQUEST: Consider concept Shoreland Planned Unit Development, Zoning Text and

Zoning Map Amendments for Northland Senior Living, a proposed 50 acre, multi-use Senior Care Living Facility to be located at 12525 and 12721 75th Street North and 12520 72nd Street North, currently located in the LR and AP Zoning Districts

ZONING: LR (Lakeshore Residential) and AP (Agricultural Preservation COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LDR (Low Density Residential) and PROS (Parks, Recreation and

Open Space) PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND Brian Farrell with Northland Real Estate is planning to develop a multi-use, Senior Care Living Facility on County Road 12 just east of the Rutherford Elementary School. A total of six parcels are included in the development including 12525 and 12721 75th Street North and 12520 72nd Street North, as well as adjacent vacant lands to the east and southeast of these parcels, formerly known as Jackson Meadows Wildlife area. The senior care facility will be known as Croix Bay. This facility will be developed in conjunction and cooperation with multiple stakeholders, including Landform Professional Services, LLC. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has requested approval of the following:

1. A Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the multi-use complex which will include a variety of age-restricted living options, including memory care, assisted living, and independent living units in addition to ancillary, but on campus, institutional (Grace Baptist Church), retail (hair salon, cafe, bookstore), and service (childcare center) uses.

2. A Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) to modify City Code Section 31-210(b)(6) as follows:

Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned property may not only exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these

Case No. 2016-013 (12525 75th Street North) CPC: 3/9/2016 Page 2 of 12

structures would normally be located if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.

a) Building heights on privately or commonly owned property may only exceed limits imposed by the zoning district if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.”

3. A Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to change 12620 72nd Street N. (PID

30.030.20.42.0004) from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Lakeshore Residential (LR). All of the requests require the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. Furthermore, the applicant is aware that if the Concept PUD, ZAT, and ZAMs are approved, subsequent applications will need to be made for 1) a Special Use Permit for a Senior Care Living Facility to be located in the Lakeshore Residential and Shoreland Management District1; 2) Final PUD; and 3) associated preliminary/final plats. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Concept PUD As the property is greater than three acres in size and contains at least two principal buildings, the project is eligible to be considered as a PUD by the City. The purpose of a PUD2 is to provide for a means of:

(1) Allowing a mixture of uses in an integrated and well planned area to aid in providing a better living environment.

(2) Allowing for flexibility in group building development wherein the relationship is between building and building or buildings and site, rather than between building and property lines, as is the case in monostructural development.

(3) Preserving natural beauty spots, open space and recreational areas. (4) Ensuring variety, innovation and flexibility in the development of land and its

improvements.

Zoning Flexibility As indicated in the narrative request, the development team is asking for flexibility on specific zoning code provisions to allow for the development of this campus, preserving a significant portion of open space lands, wetlands and lakes, as well as for the installation of other public and private improvements desired by the City. The following has specifically been requested for consideration by the City:

1 City Code Section 31-401, Subd 4(b)(3) 2 City Code Section 31-210(a)


Zoning Code Provision Description of Requested Flexibility

Density Two separate factors regarding density are at play with this project. The first is the underlying zoning and the second is the fact that this property lies within the Long Lake Shoreland Management Overly District. Specifically, the State’s shoreland PUD rules calculate density based upon what type of shoreland district is involved, the minimum lot size of that district, and the distance away from the lake. The distance from the lake is defined in terms of “tiers”. The further the tier is from the lake, the higher the density may be. And, to encourage density to be shifted away from the lake, density bonuses are given as distance increases from the lake. The developer is proposing a density higher than the underlying zoning of two units per acre. One tool identified to allow for the increase in density is through the zoning ordinance, which allows higher density senior residential facilities by SUP in several of the City’s single family zoning districts. This is precisely the scenario proposed however, the developer is also seeking a Zoning Text Amendment to help make the allowance for a density increase more transparent. To the date of the development of this memo, the DNR has not yet determined the maximum number of units for the development, though it is likely there will be more than 220 units, including residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The Final PUD will need to address compliance with the DNR’s standards for development in a Shoreland District.

Setbacks

Internal

It is the intention of the developer to plat the six parcels into three development parcels and three outlots. While two of the development parcels would be retained by the developer to allow for phased construction and financing, the third development lot would be retained by Grace Baptist Church and allow for their potential expansion in the future. As such, they are requesting the City’s elimination of traditional side yard setbacks from these internal lot lines. While the structures will need to comply with building and fire codes for separation, the elimination of interior lot lines in a PUD of this nature is allowed.


CSAH 12 Blufflines

The developer is further requesting the City to consider measuring the required 100’ setback from CSAH 12 (typically measured from the right-of-way line) from the edge of what would be a standard right-of-way width. There is currently a jog that creates considerable excess land unneeded for support of the highway and infrastructure. So, the developer is seeking the City’s support in establishing the building setbacks for future expansion of Grace Baptist Church, as well as the Independent Living III/community retail/service area building on the northwest corner, at a distance of 175’ from the centerline of the highway. This is depicted on the attached 2016-03-02 Setbacks Exhibit.pdf. This, too, has been a practice the City has been favorable to on other developments where excess right-of-way exists. While the development appears to site structures within close proximity to the blufflines, all future structures and additions will need to be in compliance with the 40’ bluff setback in the Shoreland Management Overlay District.

Impervious Surface As indicated, the property is located in the Shoreland

Management Overlay District due to its proximity to Long Lake. As such, the property may only have 25% impervious surface coverage, which the development, as a whole, is meeting. The developer is requesting the City’s consideration to calculate the total impervious surface coverage area of the development, opposed to individually platted parcels. This, too, has been a practice the City has been favorable to on other master planned developments adjacent to Long Lake and South Twin Lake.

Building Height The PUD standards indicate structures must conform to the

height limitations imposed by the underlying zoning district. The Lakeshore Residential (LR) zone allows for 2.5 story, 35’ maximum structures. The development is proposing maximum structural heights between 40’5” and 40”10”, as measured from the ground grade in the front of the building. The memory care, assisted living and independent buildings, with the exception of the mixed use building at the northwest corner of the development, are all proposed to be three stories tall. As indicated in the aforementioned section, the developer is requesting a Zoning Text Amendment which would


allow for PUD flexibility in the height of structures when granted a Special Use Permit for Senior Living projects. In consideration of the height flexibility, City staff has determined that the additional half story and 5’ additional feet is acceptable for the memory care, assisted living and independent living buildings. However, the institutional and mixed use structures, situated closer to the County Road 12 property line, should be consistent with the underlying zoning.

Parking As the developer addresses in the narrative, parking

standards for Senior Care Living Facilities is not specifically noted in the City Code. However, the developer has proposed 439 spaces on the site plan, . The following calculations have been applied to similar uses in Stillwater:

Memory Care 1 space/5 units 6.2 Assisted Living 1 space/5 unit 7.6 Independent 1.5 spaces/1 unit 289.3 Staff 1 space/max no. 30 Church 1 space/3 seats 100 Commercial 1 space/300 s.f. 70 -5% (2-4 Uses) Est. = 476

Although the specific number of required parking spots cannot be determined at this time (since the number of units at this point is only conceptual), the developer is requesting a 10% reduction in the total estimated number of required parking spaces. A 10% reduction is acceptable when five to seven independent uses are found onsite. As the five to seven independent uses may be found onsite at the time of full buildout, staff has determined the parking plan identified in the plan set is acceptable so long as the aforementioned ratios are utilized in the final PUD. However, a written document outlining the shared parking should be developed for all future parcels and uses. A parking lot planting plan shall be developed and submitted with the Preliminary Plat. Additionally, the developer is depicting the future development of the Grace Baptist Church parking lot. As this lot is intended to serve the needs of their facility, staff


has found this acceptable so long as shared parking agreements are in place.

Open Space and Recreation The PUD standards further indicate land must be dedicated to the city for recreation or other open space purposes consistent with the standards and criteria contained in the park dedication policy. Ordinance 963 establishes minimum public park and trail dedication requirements. In cases such as this one where the Comprehensive Plan and park planning efforts do not identify a need for on-site parkland, a park dedication fee is required in lieu of a land dedication. The developer is proposing dedication in a few ways: Construct a public trail on the private property. The trail is proposed from the existing

trail on HWY 12, along Long Lake to 72nd Street North. A trail easement would be granted to the City. However, the proposed alignment is concerning to City staff given the bluff lines and proximity to the wetland areas and wetland buffers established by the Browns Creek Watershed District. Therefore staff has determined that while trail dedication is sufficient to potentially cover a portion of the dedication requirements, further evaluation will need to be given to the location of the future trail.

Provide for a mix of public/private lake access options on the north edge of Long Lake. Included in this would be a private dock, and potentially a public beach, overlook or fishing pier.

o As there are site constraints in this location due to the limited land area available, and proximity to the existing unimproved roadway, the City will need to further discuss what recreation options may be available in this area.

o While staff has determined public recreation and lake access is desirable in this location, the extent to this should be finalized prior to final PUD.

o The concept approval of a private dock in this location cannot be made at this time as the City does not have adequate information to assess the water rights as well as other riparian impacts in this location.

Dedicate conservation easement lands to the City. As indicated in the narrative, the area of the land is yet to be determined. However, in the Recreation Plan the developer is showing a large swath of steep slope and wetland area to be placed in a conservation easement. While staff has determined these lands would be most suitable as having a conservation easement on them, the lands are not to be considered as meeting the public park dedication requirements. As the Comprehensive Plan shows no lands needed in this area for public park purposes, the developer will likely need to pay a fee-in-lieu. Incidentally, the park dedication fee has been reduced in the past for senior living projects, because the impact upon the public park system is typically not as great as would be the case for other types of housing projects.

State law requires 50% of a Shoreland PUD’s site to be permanent open space. To the date of memo development, the developer has not shown how the 50% open space area will be met. This will need to be solidified prior to the submittal of the Final PUD.


Other Development Considerations Streets

The main entrance into the project would align with Minar Avenue on County Road 12. It is proposed to be a private road. However, the City Engineering and Public Works Department would like to see this main road as a public roadway. All private streets, sidewalks and parking areas must be built and maintained in accordance with city standards and specifications. A secondary access point is proposed on the western property boundary. While the developer shows this as an acceptable access point in the Washington County draft Access Management plan for this corridor, it is no longer acceptable in the current draft plan. As such, prior to final PUD submittal, the developer will either need to receive permission from the County for an access at this location, or determine a feasible secondary access to this site. If the County does not approve the secondary access, then the developer will be

required to pay the City for the cost of a traffic impact study, prepared by a City-designated engineer. The purpose of this study would be to ensure the traffic generated from this mixed use campus will be able to adequately and safely enter and exit this property.

While not proposed to be improved, the developer is proposing to dedicate that portion of 72nd Street North to the City. As the City has a prescriptive easement over the property, the road right-of-way will need to be platted.

Utilities

The developer intends to connect to and extend the existing water and force sewer main along HWY 12 as well as extend and connect to the sanitary sewer at Rutherford Elementary School. While the narrative indicates utility plans will be submitted at the time of preliminary plat, the utility plan shall include the connection of all existing structures to public utilities as a part of this development. All public utilities and communications transmission facilities must be installed underground. Drainage The developer is proposing to maintain all drainage onsite. This is encouraged by the City. While not requested by the developer, the City would like the following drainage and utility easements on the property: At the NE corner of Long Lake the City has an outlet structure and pipe that connects

Long Lake to the wetlands. There is currently no recorded easement for these improvements; city staff is seeking an easement over these improvements.

The connection between the two wetland areas has had to be maintained by the City in the past. A drainage and utility easement, with an exact boundary to be determined, would be needed over both waterbodies to ensure future maintenance of this drainage system.


A drainage and utility easement over the water and shoreline along Long Lake is necessary for the future needs of the City. While it is understood the developer would like to maintain private ownership and install undetermined public and private improvements in this location, this easement would need to account for those potential development opportunities.

At the southwest property corner and on the north side of Long Lake drainage from 72nd Street North is a concern. The City would like to see a drainage and utility easement on the north side of the newly platted roadway to accommodate for future stormwater needs when the roadway is improved.

Comprehensive Plan

As the City Code further indicates, the PUD project must be designed and developed to harmonize with both existing and proposed development in the area surrounding the site and with the city's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan’s housing chapter encourages the provision of a range of housing opportunities for aging in the community and for the elderly. This PUD helps fulfill the following policies and program goals while preserving a significant amount of private and public open space areas:

Policy 4. Attempt to disburse assisted housing throughout the community. Policy 5. Locate assisted housing near transit lines and public parks. Policy 9. Utilize the Future Land Use map to designate residential sites appropriately

located for a range of housing densities. Program 3: Attempt to meet regional lifecycle housing goals for the City of Stillwater.

In addition to extending a trail connection in compliance with the Park and Trail Plan, the following implementation items of the Comprehensive Plan’s Chapter three, Natural Resources, may be able to be met with this development: Requiring protection of the natural resource areas identified on the NRI maps as open

space or parks if they are located within the proposed development area. Ensuring open space resource areas, including sensitive natural resource areas, are

identified and incorporated into development design. Improving public access to the river.

Zoning Text Amendment As indicated, the following text amendment is proposed

Section 31-201(b)(6) Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned property may not only exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these structures would normally be located if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.

(a) Building heights on privately or commonly owned property may only exceed limits imposed by the zoning district if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.”


Prior to approving a ZAT, the Commission must find that The public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies

and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The applicant has indicated:

The change will allow development of this senior living campus, which increases lifecycle housing and service options in the community while protecting natural resources and maintaining open space. The project will help meet the Metropolitan Council objected outlined in Chapter 2 of the Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan by providing more housing choices within the City and allowing for increased lifecycle housing by allowing for reduced setbacks requirement and cluster development. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as addressed in the narrative.

Zoning Map Amendments As indicated, One Zoning Map Amendments (ZAM) to change 12620 72nd Street N. (PID 30.030.20.42.0004) from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Lakeshore Residential (LR). Prior to approving a ZAM, the Commission must find that The public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and That the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies

and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The applicant has indicated:

The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment to ensure that the zoning is consistent with the underlying land use classification as required by State Law. Additionally, the change will allow development of this senior living campus, which increases lifecycle housing and service options in the community while protecting natural resources and maintaining open space. The project will help meet the Metropolitan Council objected outlined in Chapter 2 of the Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan by providing more housing choices within the City and allowing for increased lifecycle housing by allowing for reduced setbacks and flexibility in design. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as addressed earlier in this narrative.

However as two additional parcels are proposed to be included in this development, staff would also propose the following parcels are considered for rezoning to ensure consistency with the Future Land Use Map, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan:


PID Current Zone Proposed Zone 30.030.20.42.0005 AP: Agricultural Preservation PROS: Parks, Recreation and Open Space 30.030.20.41.0040 AP: Agricultural Preservation PROS: Parks, Recreation and Open Space ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Planning Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the

provisions of the Planned Unit Development, ZAT, and ZAM regulations, the Commission should forward a favorable recommendation of approval of the Concept Planned Unit Development, ZAT, and ZAM with the following conditions of approval:



2. The rezonings will not become effective nor will they be published, until the Final PUD and Plat is approved by the City and the Final Plat is filed with Washington County for recording.



5. The Final PUD will calculation the 25% impervious surface area for the entire development. Areas shall be delineated with the proposed Final Plat boundaries.


7. A Brown’s Creek Watershed District permit shall be obtained. 8. The main structure shall not be increased in height greater than three stories

and 40’10” from the ground grade of the front of the building. 9. The ancillary structures of Grace Baptist Church and mixed use and

Independent Living III shall be limited to the Lakeshore Residential Zoning District height maximums.

10. A 10% reduction in the total number of parking stalls shall be permitted in the Final PUD. The total number of stalls is contingent on the density maximums and shall be determined utilizing the following ratios. i. Memory Care/Assisted Living = 1 space/5 units

ii. Independent Living = 1 space/1.5 units iii. Church = 1 space/3 seats iv. Commercial 1 space/300 s.f. v. Senior Care Living Facility Staff = 30 spaces


12. A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved.


13. A total of 50% open space area shall be depicted on the Final PUD, and the open space calculations must be approved the DNR.

14. The trail alignment in conformance with the Brown’s Creek Watershed District’s wetland buffer setback, and determined acceptable by the City of Stillwater, will be submitted at the time of Final PUD submittal.









21. The main access road to the project must be built and platted as a public road.

22. The private land area of 72nd Street North shall be platted and dedicated to the City. This shall be identified on the preliminary plat.

23. Utility connections shall be made to all existing structures at the time of development of the first phase.


B. Table If the Planning Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to

make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information.


C. Denial If the Planning Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of the Planned Unit Development, ZAT, and ZAM regulations, the Commission should forward recommendation of denial to the City Council. The Commission should indicate a reason for such recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the Concept Planned Unit Development is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the PUD provisions. Additionally, staff finds the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and the proposed Zoning Text and Zoning amendments, including those proposed by staff, are in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff makes the recommendation the Commission recommend conditional approval of these applications. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map (9 pages) Applicant Narrative (10 pages) Concept PUD Submittal Cover Page, Aerial & Existing Conditions (4 pages) Tree Removal Concept Existing Conditions Site Analysis Site Plan Floor Plans (4 pages) Elevations (3 pages) Additional Renderings (2 pages) Phase Schedule Lot Analysis Preliminary Utility Plan

Setbacks Exhibit

80TH

77TH STREET NORTH

75TH STREET NORTH

ROAD

RUTHERFORD

RUTHERFORD

BLVD.

PIONEER

ROADPLACE

RUTHERFORD

GREENFIELDS

SUMMER

PIONEER PLACE

PLACEPIONEER

LIBERTY

PARKWAY

GREENFARM HILL

WAY

STREET

NORTH

MELVILLE

COURT NORTH

75TH STREET NORTHC S A H 12

C S A

H 1

5

SCHOOL HOUSE CIRCLE

PLANTINGGREEN

COUNTRY

SETTLER'S WAYEN

GLAN D PLACE

SETTLER'S WAY

LIBERTY

PARKWAY

TALLPINE TRAILTRAIL/PARK

USER PARKING

MANN

ING

AVEN

UEMA

NNIN

G AV

ENUE

MANN

ING

A

VENU

E

NOR

THC

S A H

15

NORTHSTREET80TH

77TH

MANN

ING

A

VENU

ENO

RTH

C S A

H 1

5C

S A H

15

77TH

STREETCOURTNORTH

LANE

75TH

MINA

R

MINAR AVE NO

MINAR AVENUE

NORT

H

C S A H 12

STREET NORTH72ND

NORT

H

AVEN

UE

INTE

RLAC

HEN

CT

AVEN

UE

AVEN

UE

NORT

HLAN

D

NORT

HLAN

D

INTERLACHEN DRIVE

TAMAR

ACK

COUR

T

MORG

AN AV

ENUE

NOR

TH

STREET

CREEKSIDE

CIRCLE

CREEK

CREE

KSID

E

CR

OSSI

NG

CT

MINAR LANE NORTH

NORT

H

AVENUENORTH

MINAR

BOUTWELLROAD

NORTH

SIDE

EAGLE RIDGE TRLANE

WEBSTER COURTMACEY WAY

MORGAN Ave N

ABERCROMBIELANE

ATWOOD

LANE

PINE HALLOW GRNPINE

HALLOW PL

NEW

µ

0 940 1,880470Feet

Development BoundaryMunicipal BoundaryParcel Boundaries

^

General Site Location

12525 75th Street North12721 75th Street North12620 72nd Street North

Site Location

Northland Real Estate Group presents

Croix Bay A Stillwater Senior Community

Stillwater, MN

NARRATIVE FOR A CONCEPT PUD,

ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AND

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT

Revised March 2, 2016

February 19, 2016

NRG15001 March 2, 2016 Project Narrative 3

INTRODUCTION

On behalf of Northland Real Estate Group, Landform is pleased to submit this application for concept

PUD (planned unit development), zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment to allow a senior

living campus on 49.3 acres located south of CSAH 12 and east of Rutherford Elementary School.

The proposed project is a re-visioning of a previously approved senior housing project on the subject site.

In 2014, Select Senior Living of Stillwater received approval to construct a three-story, 100-unit senior

care facility on 5.87 acres between the elementary school and the church. In 2015, Northland Real Estate

acquired control of the site and began evaluating the previous project and approvals with the idea that the

project could be revived. With little analysis, it was apparent that the project proposed was not a suitable

fit for the Stillwater marketplace, and assembled a team to create a new vision more in line with the

marketplace. It was apparent from the onset that a successful project would require a broader assembly

of land to provide larger and a more diverse mix of units. The amenities necessary to support these units

would need to be reflective of the market, and the type of care would need to reflect the latest thoughts on

providing for our seniors in a way that allows them to be active members of the community.

The demand for senior housing is rising as the baby boomers age and seek generation-specific housing.

According to recent trends, seniors are looking for a unique or distinctive range of amenities that allow

residents to have access to these amenities without worry or travel, and provide a feeling of independent

living. Our plan may include small retail, such as a café, bookstore or daycare to integrate seniors into the

larger nearby community.

In collaboration with Ebenezer Senior Care, the team designed a senior campus providing over 230 units

in a broad range of care including Memory care, Assisted Living, and a wide variety of Independent Living

units with a full range of services provided in-place, regardless of the resident’s level of care.

The expanded campus now includes property south and east of the original site. The property to the east

has undergone extensive reforestation and rehabilitation and now provides an incredible natural amenity

for both the campus and the community at-large. Residents of the new community will enjoy views onto

all of this eastern property and units on the south will also enjoy views of Long Lake through the existing

tree stands. These assets become central to the design and orientation of the campus, and it is

anticipated that the areas not slated for development will remain natural with trails and access provided to

residents and members of the community. Mr. Elden Lamprecht has joined the project and will continue

the work he has done to restore this area and serve as a consultant for the location and configuration of

trails, landscapes and amenities in these areas.

As our operations partner, Ebenezer is driven to heal, discover and educate for longer, healthier,

meaningful lives. The Croix Bay campus provides an ideal environment for this mission and the

development team is anxious to get started.


SUBJECT PARCEL

The site includes six parcels identified as PIDs 3003020420002, 3003020420010, 3003020420011,

3003020420004, 3003020420005 and 3003020410040. Our redevelopment plan includes a future plat to

consolidate those six parcels into three parcels and three outlots. Five of the six parcels will be owned by

the development entity and Grace Baptist Church will retain the sixth parcel, but the entire site will

function as a single campus with shared access and amenities.

Northland Real Estate Group has created a development entity for this project and will refine the terms as

the project moves forward. All project parcels are currently under contract and in our control with

adequate time to proceed with the planned development. Private capital along with our financing partner

are in place to complete the proposed development. We are excited about the improvements proposed

for this site and look forward to sharing more information with the City as we move through the process.

CONCEPT PUD

We are requesting approval of a concept PUD in the Lakeshore Residential (LR) District to provide an

integrated senior housing campus. Our proposal includes two buildings as part of a senior housing

campus that is age restricted, independent living in three distinct settings and memory care with a variety

of services on-site. The campus will also include the Grace Baptist Church and other retail/service

amenities to serve the campus residents and the larger community.

This type of campus development will allow the City to expand the range of housing options available for

the aging population. Our concept is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which encourages a

range of housing opportunities for the aging population in the community.

Section 31-210 of the Zoning Ordinance notes that the PUD is a tool to provide a means of meeting the

following goals, which our project meets as noted below:

1. Ensuring variety, innovation and flexibility in the development of land and its improvements.

The project allows for development of a senior living campus that is not currently available in the

area. A smaller senior housing project was approved on the northwestern portion of the site in 2014.

We are proposing to expand that concept to include a mix of senior living with a full spectrum of care

and amenity options that will allow seniors to age in place. The concept includes different housing

options and all options are age restricted (55+ years of age). In order to accomplish the vision for the

innovative campus, we will be requesting flexibility in the zoning standards. In exchange for

preservation of the majority of the site as open space and clustering the development in northwest

portion of the site, we will be looking for flexibility on setbacks, building height and other bulk

standards. We are also requesting a zoning ordinance text amendment to specifically allow this type

of flexibility for PUDs for senior living campuses.


2. Allowing a mixture of uses in an integrated and well planned area to aid in providing a better living

environment.

The PUD will allow development of a mixture of uses in an integrated and well planned campus

setting. Seniors are demanding more housing options, including access to a variety of services and

volunteer opportunities. Our campus proposal integrates the existing Grace Baptist Church into the

campus (and allows the potential for them to expand in the future) as well as supportive retail and

services uses, such as daycare, hair salon, café, etc.

3. Allowing for flexibility in group building development wherein the relationship is between building

and building or buildings and site, rather than between building and property lines, as is the case

in monostructural development.

The senior living campus will require flexibility in the setbacks between buildings within the project.

The development includes multiple buildings on different lots, but since they will function as one

community, we request the ability to be reduce these internal setbacks.

4. Preserving natural beauty spots, open space and recreational areas.

The project preserves the natural beauty by clustering the development on the northwest portion of

the site and preserving the majority of the land as open space. We are also proposing dedication of a

conservation easement over a portion of this open space to ensure that it is maintained in perpetuity.

Grace Baptist Church Setbacks

We are requesting PUD flexibility on the internal setback requirements, which is typical of a master

planned campus such as this, and some flexibility from the 100-foot building setback from CSAH 12. The

CSAH 12 right-of-way is unusually large adjacent to this property and creates a difficultly when planning

the development. The County has unusually wide right-of-way adjacent to this property both on the north

for the street and also on the east for the pond, which renders the church site virtually unbuildable. We

are requesting that as part of this PUD, we be allowed to assume a standard 75-foot ½ right-of-way for

County Road 12 for setback purposes. For the majority of this street section to the west, the County has a

75-foot ½ right-of-way. This more typical right-of-way would allow the Church options for future

expansion. We have prepared an exhibit to reflect this proposed flexibility. There would be no impact on

traffic movements as the setback from the street would be consistent with other developments in areas

with standard rights-of-way. We are meeting or exceeding all other setback standards for the LS district

and the Shoreland Overlay District and ask for this flexibility to allow Grace Baptist Church future

opportunities to grow in Stillwater.

Building Height

We are also requesting flexibility in the building height. The larger of the two buildings on-site is intended

for memory care and two types of senior living and will provide below grade parking for residents. The

building is a walkout style that allows residents to have access to the terrace, pedestrian paths and


natural features of the waterbody. The building will have an elevation of 3-stories on the front entrance

facing CSAH 12. The backside of the building adjacent to the waterbody will exceed 3 stories in height to

allow for the walkout design that offers residents the ability to enjoy the natural open space.

Approximately 20% of the exposed building will exceed 3-stories in height, for an average height of

approximately 3.25 stories for the building as a whole. This type of building design allows us to take

advantage the existing site elevations and minimizes the amount of grading disturbance necessary for the

project.

Shoreland Standards

Approximately 85% of the project site is located in the Shoreland Overlay District. The City’s ordinance

(Section 31-402) provides standards for development within the Shoreland Overlay District. The

maximum impervious surface allowed in the Shoreland Overlay District is 25% of the lot area. Our

concept shows 24.10% impervious coverage, which is below the allowable impervious surface area.

Because we are proposing a significant open space area as part of this project, we are requesting the

flexibility to consider impervious surface area for the project as a whole, rather than individual lots. As we

move to the final stage of the project we would likely assign maximum impervious surface limits to each

lot to reflect this total, which will allow the city to track development as it progresses through the

anticipated phases.

Section 31-402 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 40-foot setback from the top of bluff and a 75-foot

setback from the OHWL from recreational development lakes. Our project has shifted the development

away from Long Lake and far exceeds these minimum setback standards.

Prior to developing this submittal package, we met with City and MnDNR staff to discuss our proposal. At

this meeting, we learned that in addition to the adopted City shoreland standards, the MnDNR will be

reviewing the project with the City to ensure that the purpose and intent of the shoreland rules have been

met. We have reviewed the DNR PUD Evaluation Worksheets provided to us in a pre-application

meeting. We understand that these templates were developed to give guidance to cities, but they were

not developed with this type of a campus project with its mix of commercial and senior living in mind.

However, as we developed our project we did incorporate the MnDNR principle of allowing density

bonuses on a tier basis by shifting development away from the lake. The proposed site is divided into five

tiers, each 267 feet stemming from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Long Lake, classified as a

Recreational Development Lake and proceeding landward. Our proposed development will be clustered

in tiers two, three and four of the five tiers, which we believe is consistent with the purpose and intent.

Tree Preservation

Section 31-522 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates tree and forest protection. For this stage of the

development process, we are providing a tree survey that provides generalized areas of tree removal.

The project was designed to minimize tree removal by clustering the development in the northwest


portion of the project and preserving the trees on the east and south portions of the site. The properties in

the southeast east portion is not proposed for development. A tree preservation plan will be prepared and

submitted with the preliminary plat application.

Recreation Plan

Section 48-51 of the Zoning Ordinance requires park and trail dedication for subdivision. Open space will

be provided on the Lamprecht parcel and will include land to be dedicated to the City in a conservation

easement. The area of land to be dedicated will be determined in the platting process. Our concept plan

shows construction of a trail connecting from the new CSAH 12 trail to Long Lake within a new

conservation easement.

The trail will provide access to Long Lake and we envision a mix of public and private lake access

options. We would like to provide a dock that could be utilized by the residents of the senior living campus

with potential for docking pontoons or other watercraft. The public access might be an overlook, beach or

fishing dock. We look forward to working with the City to develop the final plan.

Parking

Section 31-510 of the Zoning Ordinance provides parking standards but does not specifically address

standards for the proposed facility. The parking ratio for “institutions for the aged” and “nursing homes” is

one space for each five residents plus a space for each employee on the largest shift. Residential

apartment uses require 1.5 spaces per unit with one space covered, and an additional space per 3 units

for guest parking. The table below outlines how the proposal will provide parking for residents and guests

in compliance with ordinance requirements.

Streets and Access

Parking Requirements

RequiredType Units Ratio Parking UG Surface

Memory Care 31 0.20 6.2 7Assisted Living 38 0.20 7.6 8Independent Living I 85 1.00 85 65 20Independent Living II 84 1.25 105 84Independent Living III 24 1.50 36 24 12Staff (Max Shift) 1.00 30 30Misc. (Additional Stalls) 0

ChurchDiscount for Shared Parking TBD 10% -24

TOTAL 245.8 173 77

TOTAL 250

Provided

Self Parks at Code


The proposal also includes land to be dedicated for future right-of-way in two locations on the site. The

access plan was developed based on the access plan we received from Washington County dated

December 1, 2015, which shows two full accesses in this location. The main entrance on the east side of

the project will provide full access and connect to a new private drive which will provide access to the

senior living campus and Grace Baptist Church.

The second access will be a new public street in 0.4 acres of deeded right-of-way in the northwestern

portion of the project area. This new right-of-way will provide access off CSAH 12 for this site, the

property to the south (should they choose to develop) and potentially for the adjacent school site. A new

street will be constructed as part of the project. This new public street would connect to our main private

street, but would also provide access for adjacent properties.

An additional 2.29 acres near the southwestern edge of the project area will be dedicated, but not

improved, for a possible future improvement of 72nd Street North and Interlachen Drive.

Utilities

Sanitary sewer will be extended from the southwest to serve this site. Water will be extended from CSAH

12 and will be looped through the site. Final design of the sanitary sewer and water plans will be provided

with the preliminary plat application.

Stormwater will be treated on site and will be discharged to the northwest, mimicking the natural drainage

patterns on site.

ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT

We are proposing a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for flexibility in bulk and use

standards for a senior living campus PUD. After discussing the issue with City staff, we request that

Section 31-210(b)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance (the allowable uses table) be amended by deleting the

stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows:

Aggregate density of structures and building heights on privately or commonly owned property may not only exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district in which these structures would normally be located if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects. (a) Building heights on privately or commonly owned property may only exceed limits imposed by the zoning district if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.”

The ordinance requires the City Council to consider two standards when approving a text or map

amendment. Our proposal meets these considerations, specifically:

1. The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment.

The change will allow development of this senior living campus, which increases lifecycle housing

and service options in the community while protecting natural resources and maintaining open space.


The project will help meet the Metropolitan Council objected outlined in Chapter 2 of the Stillwater

2030 Comprehensive Plan by providing more housing choices within the City and allowing for

increased lifecycle housing by allowing for reduced setbacks requirement and cluster development.

2. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the

comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan.

The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the

Comprehensive Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as addressed earlier in this narrative.

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT

The parcels included in our project are guided Low Density Residential (LDR) and Parks, Recreation or

Open Space. The parcels are zoned Lakeshore Residential (LR) and Agriculture Preserve (A-P). The

proposed development will occur on the four parcels that are guided LDR and the remaining two parcels

are proposed to remain guided Parks, Recreation and Open Space.

We are requesting to rezone the McKenzie property (PID 3003020420004) from A-P to LR. Rezoning the

parcel to LR is consistent with the guided designation of LDR as described and illustrated in the 2030

Residential Land Use Plan Categories chart on page 14 of Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.

The ordinance requires the City Council to consider two standards when approving a text or map

amendment. Our proposal meets these considerations, specifically:

1. The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment.

The public necessity and the general community welfare warrant the adoption of the amendment to

ensure that the zoning is consistent with the underlying land use classification as required by State

Law. Additionally, the change will allow development of this senior living campus, which increases

lifecycle housing and service options in the community while protecting natural resources and

maintaining open space. The project will help meet the Metropolitan Council objected outlined in

Chapter 2 of the Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan by providing more housing choices within the

City and allowing for increased lifecycle housing by allowing for reduced setbacks and flexibility in

design.

2. The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the

comprehensive plan and any adopted area or specific plan.

The amendment is in general conformance with the principles and policies set forth in the

Comprehensive Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as addressed earlier in this narrative.

SUMMARY


We respectfully request approval of the, Concept PUD, Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Text

Amendment for this senior living campus. We understand that there are several complexities with this

application and we look forward to meeting with staff in March to review the development proposal and

address any questions in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. We request to be placed on the

agenda for the March 9th Planning Commission meeting and the April 5th City Council meeting.

CONTACT INFORMATION

This document was prepared by:

Kendra Lindahl, AICP

Landform

105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513

Minneapolis, MN 55401

Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Darren Lazan at

[email protected] or 612.638.0250.

mailto:[email protected]

Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.

FEBRUARY 19, 2016

CONCEPT PUDSUBMITTAL EXHIBITS

STILLWATER, MINNESOTA

SHEET INDEXAERIAL EXISTING CONDITIONS, SURVEYEXISTING CONDITIONS, SITE ANALYSISTREE REMOVALS, GENERAL AREASSITE PLANARCHITECTURE, FLOOR PLANSARCHITECTURE, ELEVATIONSSTAGING PLANRECREATION PLANLOT ANALYSISPRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANREQUESTED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT

view from rear

02-19-2016

view of front entry

FEBRUARY 19, 2016Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.


NORTH

0 100’ 200’

AERIAL

MIN

AR AVEN

UE N

ORTH

PROJECT BOUNDARY

75TH STREET NORTH

INTERLACHEN DRIVE

NO

RTH

LAN

D A

VEN

UE

RUTHERFORDELEMENTARY

MEISTERLINGPROPERTY

LONG LAKE

72ND STREET NORTH

FLOOD ZONE

BENCHMARK

SURVEY NOTES

CERTIFICATION

AREA SUMMARY

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

ZONING AND SETBACKS

VALTNRG15001-Alta Survey sheet 1

1SHEET NO.

PROJECT NO.

FILE NAME

IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOTVISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED

READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACTTHE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.

BY: DATE:

DATE REVISION BY

PROJECT

REVISION HISTORY

SURVEYORS SEAL

SURVEY MANAGER REVIEW

/

LAND

FORM

c

Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®®

CLIENT

MUNICIPALITY

EBL 02/19/16

NRG15001

2

2016

NORTHNO SCALE

AREA LOCATION MAP

SITE SYMBOLS/LEGEND

FEBRUARY 19, 2016

EXISTINGCONDITIONS

5

15

95

36

SITE

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

ΔΔ

ΔΔ

ΔΔ

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

Δ

COUNTY ROAD NO. 12

75TH ST. N.

72ND ST. N. INTERLACHEN DRIVE

MID OAKS AVE. N.

NORT

HLAN

D

AVEN

UE

MINAR AVE. N.

VALTNRG15001-Alta Survey sheet 2

2SHEET NO.

PROJECT NO.

FILE NAME

IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOTVISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED

READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACTTHE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.

BY: DATE:

DATE REVISION BY

PROJECT

REVISION HISTORY

SURVEYORS SEAL

SURVEY MANAGER REVIEW

/

LAND

FORM

c

Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®®

CLIENT

MUNICIPALITY

EBL 02/19/16

NRG15001

2

2016

FEBRUARY 19, 2016

EXISTINGCONDITIONS

NORTH

0 100 200



NORTH

0 100’ 200’

TREE REMOVALSGENERAL AREAS

MIN

AR AVEN

UE N

ORTH

TREE IMPACTS

TREE IMPACTS

TREE IMPACTSTREE IMPACTS

PROJECT BOUNDARY

75TH STREET NORTH

INTERLACHEN DRIVE

NO

RTH

LAN

D A

VEN

UE


MEISTERLINGPROPERTY

LONG LAKE

72ND STREET NORTH



NORTH

0 100’ 200’

EXISTING CONDITIONSSITE ANALYSIS

GdWX

SÁ

GkWX

GoWX

S¿

S¿

GdWX

STIL

LWAT

ERBL

VD

N

OW

ENSST

N

OW

ENS

ST S

OLIVE ST W

MYRTLE ST W

75TH ST N

LAUREL ST W

MA

NN

ING

A VE

N

MCK

USICK

RD

This map is the result of a compilationand reproduction of land records as they appear in various Washington County offices.This map should be used for referencepurposes only. Washington County is not responsible for any inaccuracies.

8LegendAccess Locations

a Full Access

a Restricted Access

CSAH 12 (75th St N/Myrtle St W) - Access Managment

_`

_` _

`_`

_`

`

_`

_`

_`

0 200 400 600 800100Yards

1:13,162Scale

_`

December 1st, 2015

CSAH 12 Access Management Plan from Washington County. Green Arrows signify full access.

PAGE No.Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.R R

SENIOR LIVING STILLWATER, MN

DEVELOPMENT AREA SUMMARY

01.28.2016

NORTH0 200

LEGEND

MIN

AR AVEN

UE N

ORTH

SLOPES

R/W

R/W

WETLAND

WATER

WATER

EXISTING TRAIL

GREAT VIEWS

GREAT VIEWS

GREAT VIEWS

EXISTINGBRIDGE

UNIMPROVED ROADWAY

GREAT VIEWS

PROP

OSED

TRA

IL

EDGE O

F UPL

AND

PROJECT BOUNDARY

75TH STREET NORTH

INTERLACHEN DRIVE

NO

RTH

LAN

D A

VEN

UE


MEISTERLINGPROPERTY

LONG LAKE

72ND STREET NORTH

Development Area Summary

ACRES SQ.FT. Gross Project Area 49.30 2,147,388

Dedicated R/WWaterbodies

2.33 13.30

Net Development Area (NDA)

33.66 1,466,286

Factor 0.25Allowable Impervious Area 8.42 366,571



NORTH

0 100’ 200’

SITE PLAN

Parking RequirementsRequired Provided

Type Units Ratio Parking UG SurfaceMemory Care 31 0.20 6.2 - 7Assisted Living 38 0.20 7.6 - 8Independent Liv-ing I

85 1.00 85 65 20

Independent Liv-ing II

84 1.25 105 84 -

Independent Liv-ing III

24 1.50 36 24 12

Staff, max. shift - 1.00 30 - 30Misc., add’t. stalls - - - - 0Church - - - Self Parks at CodeDiscount for Shared Parking

TBD 10% -24 - -

TOTAL 245.8 173 77TOTAL 250

MIN

AR AVEN

UE N

ORTH

PROJECT BOUNDARY

75TH STREET NORTH

INTERLACHEN DRIVE

NO

RTH

LAN

D A

VEN

UE


MEISTERLINGPROPERTY

LONG LAKE

72ND STREET NORTH

Impervious AnalysisAcres % NDA

Building, Drives, and Parking 6.81 20.22%Proposed Trail 0.39 1.16%Sidewalks, Patios, Plaza 0.92 2.73%Other Allotment (Future Expansion, etc) 0.30 0.90%

Total 8.42 25.00%

Impervious Allocation through PUDAcres Sq. Ft. % of total

Lot 1 1.11 48,555 13%Lot 2 3.90 169,792 46%LOT 3 2.16 93,994 26%OUTLOT A 1.24 54,230 15%TOTAL 8.42 366,571 100%

INDEPENDENT LIVING I

INDEPENDENT LIVING II

INDEPENDENT LIVING III

& MEMORY CAREASSISTED LIVING

24 STALLS

74 STALLS

60 STALLS

101 STALLS

north

0' 60' LOWER FLOOR PLAN

garage entry

parking - 60 cars

INDEPENDENT LIVING l12 UNITS

TOWN CENTER

park

ing

- 45 ca

rs

garage entry

parking - 75 cars

theater

02 02 201602-19-2016

support

north

0' 60' MAIN FLOOR PLAN

MEMORY CARE31 UNITS

INDEPENDENT LIVING ll28 UNITS


TOWN CENTER

kitchen

dining

cafe

support

administation

club room

02-19-2016

north

0' 60' SECOND FLOOR PLAN

ASSISTED LIVING19 UNITS



02-19-2016

north

0' 60' THIRD FLOOR PLAN


ASSISTED LIVING19 UNITS


02-19-2016

0' 30' 60'

SOUTH ELEVATION - Indep Liv l

0' 30' 60'

EAST ELEVATION - Indep Liv l / MC

MC / AL Building

IL l Building

02-19-2016

40'-

10"

0' 30' 60'

WEST ELEVATION - MC / AL

0' 30' 60'

NORTH ELEVATION - IL / MC

MC / Al Building

MC / AL building

02-19-2016

40'-

10"

40'-

5"

0' 30' 60'

NORTH ELEVATION - Indep Liv ll

0' 30' 60'

SOUTH ELEVATION - Indep Liv ll

IL ll Bldg

IL ll Bldg

02-19-2016

40'-

10"

view from north

02-19-2016

view from south

view from rear

02-19-2016

view of front entry



NORTH

0 100’ 200’

LOT ANALYSIS

WETLAND

WATER

WATER

OUTLOT C

OUTLOT B

OUTLOT A

LOT 1

LOT 2

LOT 3

PROJECT BOUNDARY

75TH STREET NORTH

INTERLACHEN DRIVE

NO

RTH

LAN

D A

VEN

UE


MEISTERLINGPROPERTY

LONG LAKE

72ND STREET NORTH

Impervious Allocation through PUDAcres Sq. Ft. % of total

Lot 1 1.11 48,555 13%Lot 2 3.90 169,792 46%LOT 3 2.16 93,994 26%OUTLOT A 1.24 54,230 15%TOTAL 8.42 366,571 100%



NORTH

0 100’ 200’

PRELIMINARYUTILITY PLAN

CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER

CONNECT TO EXISTINGWATER AND FORCE MAIN

CONNECT TO EXISTINGWATER AND FORCE MAIN

WATER

STORMWATERSTORMWATER WATER

PROJECT BOUNDARY

75TH STREET NORTH

INTERLACHEN DRIVE

NO

RTH

LAN

D A

VEN

UE


MEISTERLINGPROPERTY

LONG LAKE

72ND STREET NORTH

MARCH 2, 2016Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.

STILLWATER, MINNESOTACroix Bay

NORTH

0 100’ 200’

SETBACK EXHIBIT

OUTLOT A

LOT 1

OUTLOT C

OUTLOT B

LOT 2

LOT 3

PROJECT BOUNDARY

75TH STREET NORTH

INTERLACHEN DRIVE

NO

RTH

LAN

D A

VEN

UE


MEISTERLINGPROPERTY

LONG LAKE

72ND STREET NORTH

CENTER LINE75 FEET

100 FEET 10 FEETPROJECTED RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY BUILDING SETBACK

EXIS

TIN

G S

ETBA

CK

PARKING SETBACK

82 FEET INDEPENDENT IIBUILDING HEIGHT 40’-10”SETBACK 82 FEET

MODIFIED FOOTPRINT TOMEET SIDE SETBACK

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Tom McCartySent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:14 AMTo: Bill Turnblad; Abbi WittmanSubject: FW: Proposed Senior Living Project

Importance: High

Bill and Abbi, See attached. Bill, let's chat. Tom McCarty ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Todd Remely [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:09 AM To: Ted Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Tom McCarty <[email protected]> Cc: Mike Polehna <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Gores <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Senior Living Project Importance: High Ted and Tom. I hope all is well. I have received a significant amount of communication regarding the proposed senior housing project near Long Lake. Our property management company, Durand and Associates, and the Legends of Stillwater Board of Directors (HOA President Ken Taillon copied) have also received numerous calls and emails. Our residents have a lot of concerns and questions and there is a very strong perception that this project is being railroaded through the process in a non‐transparent manner. This is obviously not good for the City especially in the wake of the recent public relations disaster that the School District experienced. Emotion is building, and it’s not positive. I had a nice conversation with Mike Polehna this morning about the project, and I called each of you requesting a call back. You can reach me at (612) 801‐5752. Given the lack of information that Liberty and Legends residents have about the project and the fact that Tuesday’s City Council meeting falls over Spring Break (many families will be out of town), we respectfully request that this agenda item be pushed to a future City Council meeting. This will provide time to communicate information about the proposed project to our residents. It will also provide the opportunity for more of our residents to attend the meeting. How can we make this happen? Please advise. Thank you. Todd Remely | President Liberty on the Lake HOA [email protected] (612) 801‐5752 Sent from my MacBook Pro

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Dionne Meisterling <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:59 AMTo: Ted Kozlowski; Mike PolehnaCc: Abbi WittmanSubject: Request to postpone hearing

My name is Dionne Meisterling and I live at 12550 72nd Street North in Stillwater. My husband is Dr. Michael Meisterling and is an orthopedic surgeon for St Croix Orthopedics. From what I understand from my father-in-law, Bob, you are familiar with our property from when it was being considered for development in 2007. I believe that you are aware my father-in-law has ALS and sold his property to us 5 years ago. I'm writing to request that the city Council move the date of the public hearing for the Northland senior housing Development because it is currently scheduled during spring break. The neighborhoods most affected by the proposed development are near Rutherford School. As such, many families have children and may be out of town for spring break and the Easter holiday. I have talked with numerous people who live in Liberty and Croixwood, and are concerned about the potential impact of a high density development and introducing retail on Long Lake and next door to Rutherford School. Only one home owner in Liberty on the Lake received the public hearing notice, which delayed that entire community becoming informed until after the planning meeting happened. Of the 30 residents in Croixwood with whom I spoke on Saturday and Sunday, there was not one that had heard of the project. Currently, residents run into another hurdle informing themselves. The proposal cannot be accessed online. I have tried multiple times since the planning meeting last week and cannot get access. According to Abbie Wittman, there are not enough user licenses to allow the public to view the packet. Yet, the St. Paul Pioneer Press was able to get enough information to run a very biased article on 3-12-16. The structure itself, as it is currently depicted, will greatly disrupt the rural feeling and atmosphere of the North Shore of Long Lake. The physical presence of the 4 1/2 story structure extending almost to the dirt road will disrupt the countryside continuity that currently exists in that area. There needs to be a platform for discussion between developers, city managers and local residents to mutually formulate a more suitable configuration and structure than is currently presented. This cannot be done on short notice, so please consider our request to postpone the hearing while people can become better educated. There is unfairness in fast tracking this significant increase in population density without an opportunity to hear from affected Stillwater residents, because of the short amount of time that this project has been made public. Thank you. Dionne Meisterling

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Philip Manger <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:56 PMTo: Mike Polehna; Ted KozlowskiCc: Abbi WittmanSubject: Proposed development between 75th Street North and 72nd Street North

My name is Philip Manger and I live at 12525 72nd Street North in Stillwater. I'm writing to request that the City Council move the date of the public hearing for the Northland Senior Housing Development because it is currently scheduled during the Stillwater area school spring break. The neighborhoods most affected by the proposed Northland development are near Rutherford School. As such, many families have children and may be out of town for spring break and the Easter holiday. I have talked with numerous people who live in Liberty and Croixwood, and are concerned about the potential impact of rezoning such a large property for retail high density senior development on Long Lake and next to Rutherford school. Only one home owner in Liberty on the Lake received the public hearing notice. This severely limited this community - they could not possibly have known about these plans. Of the 30 residents in Croixwood with whom I spoke on Saturday and Sunday, there was not one that had heard of the project. Currently, residents run into another hurdle informing themselves. The Northland proposal cannot be accessed online. I have tried multiple times since the planning meeting last week and can not get access. According to Abbi Wittman, there are not enough user licenses to allow the public to view the packet. Yet, the St. Paul Pioneer Press was able to get enough information to run a very biased article on 3-12-16. The structure itself, as it is currently depicted, will greatly disrupt the rural feeling and atmosphere of the North Shore of Long Lake. The physical presence of the 4 1/2 story structure extending almost to the dirt road will disrupt the countryside continuity that currently exists in that area. There needs to be a platform for discussion between developers, city managers and local residents to mutually formulate a more suitable configuration and structure than is currently presented. This cannot be done on short notice, so please consider our request to postpone the hearing while people can become better educated. Thank you. Most sincerely,

Philip Manger

1

Abbi Wittman

From: [email protected]: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 5:18 PMTo: Mike Polehna; Ted Kozlowski; Abbi WittmanSubject: Fwd: Northland Senior Housing Development

From: "Carrie Koelzer" <[email protected]> To: "Gram" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 5:04:51 PM Subject: Re: Northland Senior Housing Development I would send them separate as I did, those are the ones I included you and Chris on in a BCC. There is one error on Abbi’s address. Use the 2nd one I sent or just .us as is on the other addresses. Thanks!

Great men are not born great. They are made great through the adversities and trials they overcome for the sake of others. ~Excerpt from “What Makes A Man Great?” by JT Waresak On Mar 16, 2016, at 5:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: Hi Carrie, for some reason this letter won't send to the 3 names on the sample letter. If you think it is okay can you figure out how to send it to them? thanks My name is Linda Glendenning and I am a resident of Stillwater. I am very concerned about the way this proposal is being handled. I have to believe that you want to represent all of the residents of Stillwater and that you believe they should have a voice. The public hearing for the Northland Senior Housing Development has been scheduled during the Stillwater area spring break. Many of the people who are most affected by this proposal have school children and theCarrie, I wrote this letter but it wouldn't go to the 3 names on the sampple letter. If you like it can you figure out how to forward it? thnaksy travel during spring break. Many residents have concerns about the impact of this proposed rezoning. This development will dramatically increase traffic in an area close to an elementary school. I wonder about the need for another high population senior housing development in a city the size of Stillwater. However, my biggest concern is the lack of notification and the timing of the meeting which gives the appearance that this is something that is being put through with no

2

interest in what the citizens in the area think. Remember, they elected you and they should be your first concern. Please give careful consideration to changing the date of the meeting. Thank you. Linda Glendenning 651-351-0452

Liberty Email Alert – Important - Proposed Development Project Liberty Residents, Note - This is a long, but important email. Please don’t let its length prevent you from reading it ASAP. The email contains important, time sensitive information. This week began with numerous phone calls and emails from Liberty residents. Throughout the week, the pulse and volume of this communication rapidly increased. It all revolves around a real estate development being proposed for the northern tip of long lake. The expansive project boundary is proposed to extend from Long Lake to Grace Baptist Church. From there it runs along 75th Street to Rutherford Elementary School and then back to the lake. Each conversation and email exchange I’ve had with Liberty residents has included elements of concern, uncertainty and suspicion about the approval process. The objective of this Email Alert will be to start a line of communication with the neighborhood about the proposed project, present some facts around the proposal’s current status, outline steps to learn more and provide multiple ways to voice any concerns you may have. The proposed project is called Croix Bay. If developed using the developer’s current vision, Croix Bay will house 230 senior living units. The facility will also play host to numerous staff members, employees, vendors and frequent guests. The proposed project’s footprint spans 50 acres, has multiple structures and, for the most part, extends three stories high. This is a BIG and TALL project. Big projects generate big concerns. In response, I had numerous conversations with City officials including Mayor Ted Kozlowski, City Council Representative Mike Polehna and City Administrator Tom McCarty. My conversations with Ted, Mike and Tom were very positive and very constructive. We have a strong relationship with the City and it showed this week. All three representatives were responsive, transparent and very interested in learning what our neighborhood and the community at large think about the project. Ted, Mike and Tom are also aware of the PR disaster that was the School Board’s BOLD initiative and are determined to avoid making the same mistakes. Although I received many resident emails hinting that the City is attempting an end run around Liberty and Legends’ feedback and fast tracking the project in stealth mode, I didn’t see any evidence of this. In fact, I saw just the opposite. That’s good news! At this point the project is not much more than a picture and a dream. Although initial, conceptual conversations have taken place between the developer, the City’s planning department and the Planning Commission, no land has been purchased, financing has not been secured and no formal, final approvals have been granted. If approved, the project’s groundbreaking would be months away. Again, good news. This will provide plenty of time for Liberty and Legends

residents to discuss the project with the City and provide feedback. That notwithstanding, the project is on the agenda of Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Stillwater City Planner Abbi Whittman has indicated the following items will be considered by the City Council during Tuesday’s meeting:

• A Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) which would allow for flexibility in the height and density of senior living projects (including the proposed project) in the Planned Unit Development projects throughout the City.

• A Zoning Map Amendment (ZAM) to change a parcel of land in the

project’s footprint from Agricultural Preservation to Lakeshore Residential as well as the former DNR lands (also in the project’s footprint) to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.

Because these items concern zoning, a public hearing will be opened to collect feedback specific to the zoning changes from the community during the City Council meeting. While these zoning changes don’t mention the project by name, it’s obvious that they are associated with the project. In fact, the zoning changes are required for the developer to move forward with its current vision. Given the fact that next week is Spring Break for local schools, the timing for this meeting and public hearing is bad. I have been sincerely assured that this timing was not intentional. In fact, the City is seriously considering opening the public hearing, collecting feedback from community members who were able to attend and then continuing the public hearing and vote until the next City Council meeting. Given the fact that many residents who would like to speak will be out of town coupled with the fact that many residents are just becoming aware of the project, it would be prudent for the City Council to continue the discussion over a span of two meetings. Additionally, making the choice to continue the discussion will show a sincere desire by the City to involve the community in the process and generate trust. Anything short of that would be disappointing and offer support to those that are dubious of the City’s intention. I remain hopeful that the City Council will make the right decision on Tuesday night. If you are available to speak and share your opinions about the zoning changes, please note that the meeting will take place at City Hall on Tuesday, March 22 at 7:00 pm. If you attend, I would encourage you to end your presentation with a request to continue the discussion (i.e. public hearing and vote) until the next City Council meeting. BY the way, Mike Plena made a strong plea to the City requesting that the public hearing and vote be continued. I also made a plea. Additionally, Tom McCarty encouraged the City Council to do the same, and Ted indicated that he was also in favor of continuing. At the time of this email, it is uncertain if Council Representatives Menikheim, Junker and Weidner would be in support of the motion. However, in watching a number of City Council meetings, I have repeatedly seen Council Representative Menikheim strongly support the gathering of public opinion before casting important votes. It’s the right thing to do! All of this could add up to good news.

In addition to the zoning questions, the City Council will consider the question of whether or not the general idea of this project can be supported. The developer’s general concept, picture and dream will be presented to the City Council, but it will not include many detailed specifics. If the City Council supports the general concept, it does NOT mean that final approval has been granted for construction. Granting conceptual approval on Tuesday would simply give the City’s Planning Department a green light to begin their process of due diligence. Again, the question of FINAL approval is NOT on Tuesday’s agenda. The City is a long way from that step. Getting to a final vote will be a long process. The developers have a significant amount of work to do. For example, they must obtain the following items and approvals:

• Special Use Permit for a Senior Living Care Facility in the Lakeshore Residential zoning district (Planning Commission Public Hearing Required). Special Use Permits require the review of the development in comparison with all zoning code regulations (building design, lighting, landscaping, storm water, etc.).

• Preliminary Plat for the reconfiguration of lot lines for the development

(Planning Commission Public Hearing required). Preliminary Plats require the review of the development in comparison with all development regulations (road widths, park and trail dedication, access, utilities, etc.).

• Final Planned Unit Development (Planning Commission and City Council

Public Hearing Required). Final PUDs assess whether or not the concept is in general conformance with the concept PUD.

• Final Plat for the establishment of the new lot lines. Final Plat is the last

application. So long as it is in general conformance to the Preliminary Plat, the item only goes before the City Council.

• Additionally, the project has to win approval from the Department of

natural Resources and the Middle St. Croix Watershed District while jumping over several other hurdles.

Along the way, there will be plenty of opportunity for public input. There will be additional public hearings as noted in the bullets above. The developer is planning to host three open meetings to answer questions and collect feedback. Additionally, we will be planning our own Town Hall Meeting for the very near future. Ted, Mike and Tom have all agreed to attend. Additionally, members of the City’s Planning Department will be on-hand. We may also choose to invite the developer. This Town Hall meeting will provide an open forum with open discussion. We won’t close the doors until every Liberty and Legends resident in

attendance has their voice heard and the City has presented the project in enough detail to meet everyone’s satisfaction. A date for this meeting will be scheduled late next week. Please look for an Email Alert with the specifics at that time. This Email Alert has obviously focused on the process and not the project. Please see the attached documents for information regarding the project including a rendering of what it will look like if approved in its current form and specifics on where the project and its structures will be located. Please use this information to form your own opinion about the proposal. Additionally, Liberty Master Board member and Lifestyle Village HOA President, David Ratte, has taken the time to curate press coverage about the project. Thanks David. Please use the following links to learn more:

http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/11/new-60-million-senior-living-project-planned-for-stillwater/ http://kstp.com/news/stillwater-senior-care-living-facility-croix-bay/4073756/ http://finance-commerce.com/2016/03/proposed-stillwater-senior-project-goes-for-natural-feel/ http://stillwatergazette.com/2014/08/19/memory-care-assisted-living-facility-proposed-near-rutherford-elementary/

This issue has made it a busy week for all the stakeholders. Please join me in thanking Ted, Mike, Tom, Bill Turnblad (Director of Community Development) and Abbi Whittman for their patience, cooperation and responsiveness to the Association and the residents who have contacted them. Feel free to contact these City officials on your own with any questions you may have in advance of Tuesday night’s City Council Meeting or the upcoming Liberty on the Lake Town Hall Meeting. Ted Kozlowski | Mayor [email protected] Mobile: (651) 300-4993 City Hall: (651) 430-8800 Mike Polehna | City Council Representative [email protected] Mobile: (651) 303-7569 Tom McCarty | City Administrator

[email protected] Office: (651) 430-8801 Abbi Jo Wittman | City Planner [email protected] Office: (651) 430-8822 Bill Turnblad | Commuity Development Director [email protected] Office: (651) 430-8821 Again, this is a BIG and TALL project. It will offer significant, permanent impact to the northern tip of long lake and the area directly next to Rutherford Elementary School. I strongly encourage you to learn more about the project using the resources in this Email Alert and the city representatives listed above. Please form your own opinion about the project and plan to attend the upcoming Town Hall Meeting. This is an important issue that warrants your attention. IMMEDIATE ACTION ITEMS:

1. To help ensure that the City Council members understand that there is public interest in continuing the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday to the April 5 City Council meeting, please contact them with a short, respectful email written in your own words. This will ensure that those on vacation for Spring Break next week and those who have not yet had a chance to research the project and form an opinion will have an opportunity to be heard.

Stillwater City Council Representatives: Ted Kozlowski | Mayor [email protected]

Doug Menikheim | Ward 1 City Council Representative [email protected] Dave Junker | Ward 2 City Council Representative [email protected]

Tom Weidner | Ward 3 City Council Representative [email protected] Mike Polehna | Ward 4 City Council Representative (Liberty and Legends) [email protected]

2. Please forward this email to others in the neighborhood and anyone you know in Legends. While nearly every family in Liberty is on the Email Alert distribution list, I would like to ensure that every one of our 343 Liberty families and every one of the 175 Legends families receives this communication. If you know of someone who is not on the distribution list and lives in Liberty, please have them contact me at [email protected].

As always, please let me or another board member know if you have any questions or concerns. We are here to help. Todd Remely | President Liberty on the Lake HOA (612) 801-5752 [email protected] Please remember that 20 is plenty. Please keep your speed to no more than 20 mph while driving in the neighborhood. Keep our children safe. Please don’t hesitate to call 911 if you notice suspicious activity in the neighborhood. Please pick up after your dog. It’s the right thing to do. Please remember that ALL exterior projects must be submitted to and approved by the Liberty ARC before work can begin.

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Carrie Koelzer <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:19 AMTo: Abbi WittmanSubject: Northland Senior Housing Development

Dear Ms. Wittman, My name is Carrie Koelzer and I live at 3180 Summer Fields Green in Stillwater. I'm writing to request that the City Council move the date of the public hearing for the Northland Senior Housing Development because it is currently scheduled during the Stillwater area school spring break. The neighborhoods most affected by the proposed Northland development are near Rutherford School. As such, many families have children and may be out of town for spring break and the Easter holiday. I have talked with numerous people who live in Liberty and Croixwood, and are concerned about the potential impact of rezoning such a large property for retail high density senior development on Long Lake and next to Rutherford school. Only one home owner in Liberty on the Lake received the public hearing notice. This severely limited this community - they could not possibly have known about these plans. Over 30 residents in Croixwood have been spoken to over the weekend and there was not one that had heard of the project. Currently, residents run into another hurdle informing themselves. The Northland proposal cannot be accessed online. Our neighbor, Phil Manger informed that, according to you, there are not enough user licenses to allow the public to view the packet. Yet, the St. Paul Pioneer Press was able to get enough information to run a very biased article on 3-12-16. The structure itself, as it is currently depicted, will greatly disrupt the rural feeling and atmosphere of the North Shore of Long Lake. The physical presence of the 4 1/2 story structure extending almost to the dirt road will disrupt the countryside continuity that currently exists in that area. I am also concerned with the building process itself and the Rutherford fields not being available for use for a year. There needs to be a platform for discussion between developers, city managers and local residents to mutually formulate a more suitable configuration and structure than is currently presented. This cannot be done on short notice, so please consider our request to postpone the hearing while people can become better educated. Thank you. Most sincerely, Carrie Koelzer 651.342.1501 Thanks for your attention!

2

Great necessities call out great virtues. When a mind is raised, and animated by scenes that engage the Heart, then those qualities which would otherways lay dormant, wake into Life, and form the Character of the Hero and the Statesman. ~ Abigail Adams

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Brian Klemenhagen <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:48 AMTo: Abbi WittmanCc: Brian KlemenhagenSubject: Northland Senior Housing Development

Abbi,MynameisBrianKlemenhagenandIliveat3174SummerFieldsGreeninStillwater–backyardfacesRutherfordSchoolballfields.I'mwritingtorequestthattheCityCouncilmovethedateofthepublichearingfortheNorthlandSeniorHousingDevelopmentbecauseitiscurrentlyscheduledduringtheStillwaterareaschoolspringbreak.MyneighborhoodismostaffectedbytheproposedNorthlanddevelopmentnearRutherfordSchool.ManyfamilieshavechildrenandI’mawarethatmanyareoutoftownforspringbreakandtheEasterholiday(includingmyown)aswellasunawareofwhat’sbeingproposed.Ihavetalkedwithseveralpeoplewholiveinthearea,andmanyareconcernedaboutthepotentialimpactofre‐zoningsuchalargepropertyforretailhighdensityseniordevelopmentonLongLakeandnexttoRutherfordschool.Virtuallyeveryonehadnotheardofthis–untilonlyrecently.Thestructureitself,asitiscurrentlydepicted,willgreatlydisrupttheruralfeelingandatmosphereoftheNorthShoreofLongLakeandourimmediateneighborhood.Thephysicalpresenceofthe41/2storystructureextendingalmosttothedirtroadwilldisruptthecountrysidecontinuitythatcurrentlyexistsinthatareaaswellasunquestionablyourimmediatesightlines.Assuch,webelievethiswarrantshavingsomeinvolvementinwhatisadramaticdifferencethatIdon’tsupport,basedonwhatlimitedinformationhasbeenmadeavailable.Thereneedstobeaplatformfordiscussionbetweendevelopers,citymanagersandlocalresidents(includingthosemostaffected,likeourselves)tomutuallyformulateamoresuitableconfigurationandstructurethaniscurrentlypresented.Thisshouldnotbedoneonshortnotice,andwithoutcommunityinvolvement,sopleaseconsiderourrequesttopostponethehearingwhilepeoplecanbecomebettereducatedandpartcipate.Thankyou.

BestRegards,Brian Klemenhagen Managing Director [email protected] TripleTree, LLC 3600 Minnesota Drive, Suite 200, Edina, MN 55435 Direct 952.223.8405 Main 952.223.8400

Website | Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the

2

intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message.

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Melissa Klemenhagen <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:03 AMTo: Abbi WittmanCc: Melissa KlemenhagenSubject: Northland Senior Housing Development

Abbi, My name is Melissa Klemenhagen and I live at 3174 Summer Fields Green in Stillwater – our backyard faces Rutherford School ball fields. I'm writing to request that the City Council move the date of the public hearing for the Northland Senior Housing Development because it is currently scheduled during the Stillwater area school spring break. My family will be out for spring break and unable to attend. Given the structure directly impacts our house / neighborhood, I would like to attend to understand this in much more detail than has been provided. The neighborhoods most affected by the proposed Northland development are near Rutherford School - and our neighborhood and home, in particular. I'm aware of many families in our neighborhood are out of town for spring break and the Easter holiday. I have talked with numerous people who live in Liberty and Croixwood, and each expressed concern about the potential impact of re-zoning such a large property for retail high density senior development on Long Lake and next to Rutherford school. In fact, I'm only aware of one homeowner in Liberty on the Lake receiving the public hearing notice. This limited our community from participating or even being made aware of these plans. Currently, residents run into another hurdle informing themselves. The Northland proposal cannot be accessed online. I have tried multiple times since the planning meeting last week and cannot get access. The structure itself, as it is currently depicted, will greatly disrupt the rural feeling and atmosphere of the North Shore of Long Lake. The physical presence of the 4 1/2 story structure extending almost to the dirt road will disrupt the countryside continuity (and certainly our neighborhood and home) that currently exists in that area. There needs to be a platform for discussion between developers, city managers and local residents to mutually formulate a more suitable configuration and structure than is currently presented. This cannot be done on short notice, so please consider our request to postpone the hearing while people can become better educated and participate. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Most sincerely, Melissa Klemenhagen 612-723-3136

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Jeanette Geisbauer <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:47 PMTo: Ted Kozlowski; Mike Polehna; Abbi WittmanSubject: Not a good idea

Hello,

I am emailing all of you because of my concern over the proposed senior living facility that could be built near Rutherford elementary. As a homeowner in the Liberty/Legends neighborhood I'm completely sadden at the thought of this proposed facility. The Stillwater area has been taken over by senior living in one particular part (Boutwells) and as I drove by the massive complex this evening I got sick to my stomach thinking that something like that could be built in our backyard.

Part of the area where this facility is being proposed is a beautiful green space. The beauty of the lake, the trees and the quaint hidden homes and roads would be completely destroyed by this facility. As I run along the dirt road on the north side of Long Lake I smile at the peaceful beauty of this hidden nature area (it's a gem).

I beg you to vote down this proposal on March 22! I am speaking for a majority of homeowners and as a board member on the Legends of Stillwater HOA (come on Polehna & Ted).

A passing vote would be detrimental and a huge blow to everyone in the area. The only people that would be happy are the land owners and the contractors. You'd destroy many families "forever homes".

I think the community and tax payers deserve better. Please keep the pride of our gorgeous town and neighborhood and tell this company to find somewhere else to build this massive high rise (there are a lot of other options around 55082).

Thank you! Jeanette Geisbauer 3412 Gadient Way 612.978.2901

PS - Wish I could be at the meeting but we are out of the country for spring break, it's interesting how this project is trying to be pushed through on that particular day...

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Mike PolehnaSent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:11 PMTo: Abbi Wittman; Bill TurnbladSubject: FW: Postpone city hearing

Here is another one for you. Mike ________________________________________ From: Mike Polehna Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:10 PM To: Hegstad Subject: RE: Postpone city hearing Becky, This is actually a rescheduled published meeting because of the caucuses so it will not be changed. I just returned from discussing this project with the city planners. It is my understanding that this is a concept plan discussion with council. It is not to make any final decisions. Public hearings final approvals,permits, etc. come later. I am going to ask our city planner Abbi Wittman to contact you to discuss your concerns. There seems to be much information going around about the former DNR property that it would be good for you to see the information first hand. Please feel free to contact me if you questions are not answered by staff. Have a great day. Mike Polehna ________________________________________ From: Hegstad [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 3:34 PM To: Mike Polehna Subject: Postpone city hearing Dear Mr. Polehna, I am writing today to ask you to postpone the vote scheduled for March 22 regarding the Long Lake development project. Since the meeting falls on spring break for the community, many people will be gone, and unable to attend the meeting. Obviously, it is to everyone’s benefit that the community have a thorough dialogue up front, in order for both sides to explain their positions, so postponing the meeting until more people are available is necessary to meet that goal. I appreciate your efforts to make a change. Sincerely, Becky Hegstad 129 Rutherford Rd. Stillwater

1

Abbi Wittman

From: Tom McCartySent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:02 AMTo: Bill Turnblad; Abbi WittmanSubject: FW: city council meeting March 22...

Bill and Abbi, Here is email #2 from Council Member Polehna. Tom M.

From: Mike Polehna Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:34 AM To: Tom McCarty <[email protected]> Cc: Ted Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Bill Turnblad <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: city council meeting March 22...

Tom, I'm receiving the same email over and over that individuals did not receive information about the Northland Senior Housing Development. Is there a reason that the discussion cannot be postponed until April 5th? This is a contentious development that residents want to be heard. I haven't had this many calls and emails since I've been on the council. Mike

From: Gina Garrity [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:25 AM To: Mike Polehna; Ted Kozlowski; [email protected] Cc: Gina Garrity Subject: city council meeting March 22...

My name is Gina Garrity and I live at 164 Rutherford Road in Stillwater. I'm writing to request that the City Council move the date of the public hearing for the Northland Senior Housing Development because it is currently scheduled on March 22nd during the Stillwater area school spring break. The neighborhoods most affected by the proposed Northland development are near Rutherford School. Such as myself, many families have children and may be out of town for spring break and the Easter holiday. I have talked with numerous people who live in Liberty and Croixwood, and are concerned about the potential impact of rezoning such a large property for retail high density senior development on Long Lake and next to Rutherford school. Only one home owner in Liberty on the Lake received the public hearing notice. This severely limited this community - they could not possibly have known about these plans. The structure itself, as it is currently depicted, will greatly disrupt the rural feeling and atmosphere of the North Shore of Long Lake. The physical presence of the 4 1/2 story structure extending almost to the dirt road will disrupt the countryside continuity that currently exists in that area. There needs to be a platform for discussion between developers, city managers and local residents to mutually formulate a more suitable configuration and structure than is currently presented. This cannot be done on short notice, so please consider our request to postpone the hearing while people can become better educated. Thank you.

2

Most sincerely, Gina & Tom Garrity Thanks for your attention!

Gina Garrity 651-324-9301

Robert Aiken 7640 Minar Lane North Stillwater, MN 55082 March 8, 2016

Abbi Jo Wittman City Planner Stillwater 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082

Re: Case file 2016-013

Dear Abbi,

Below are some comments regarding Case number 2016-013, for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal of Northland Senior Living / Croix Bay. I would like these comments to be added to the public record and addressed, for the Stillwater Planning Commission meeting for 9 March, 2016. Thank you.

Cty 12 /75th/Myrtle Ave is the gateway to our community. The added building heights of 3 stories, 5’ is not compatible with other development in the area, because of the height. If the additional height is deemed absolutely required, under no circumstances should the buildings of this height be closer to Highway 12 then showed on the proposal.

Storm water Management: The application says that “storm water will be treated and flow through to the NW”. This is not correct. There is a 3 foot wide culvert under CH 12 from the lot owned by the church, west of church driveway. This terminates at the lot of 7520 Minar Lane North. The water flow then crosses that parcel and it flows under Minar Lane N through a 18 inch culvert. This will lead to street flooding of Minar Lane / Minar Ave. in some weather conditions with the increase of impervious surfaces. Who will pay to mitigate this problem? Obviously it should not be the Stillwater citizens in the Minar neighborhood through assessments.

Changes to setbacks from CSAH12 along the current church parcel: This project has significant traffic implications. The residence area has more than doubled from what was permitted previously, including some commercial development, with independent living, that can be expected to drive. For the previous permit traffic was at a minimum, since it was a memory care center. The applicant has not described what “future development” of the church will be. For this reason, changing the setbacks should be delayed until the community knows more about what the impact of this project may be. The request can be re-submitted and approved at a future time if appropriate. The city or county should have as much flexibility as possible in case further redesign is needed of the Minar Ave./ Cty 12 Highway intersection since traffic will increase. Setbacks should be preserved along the West side (phase III) of the project as well.

Screening along Highway 12 of commercial areas: Additional evergreen trees such as pine and spruce should be planted to screen the West end of the project (Phase III, Commercial).

Lighting: No lighting should extend (cast a shadow or have excessive glare) beyond the PUD, in other words, no shadows should be cast on the bike path from the PUD.

Sincerely,

Robert Aiken

CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A

CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CROIX BAY

CASE NO. 2016-13

WHEREAS, Brain Farrell of Northland Real Estate Group made application for approval of the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Croix Bay to be located at property legally described in Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, on March 9, 2015 the Stillwater Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the Concept PUD and associated Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT) and Zoning Map Amendments (ZAM); and

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2015 the Stillwater City Council held a public hearing on the Concept PUD and associated ZAT and ZAMs; and

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2016 the Stillwater City Council reviewed concept plan for

Croix Bay and found them to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the PUD provisions; the public necessity, and the general community welfare are furthered; and the proposed ZAT and ZAMs are in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the concept Planned Unit Development for Croix Bay with the following conditions:



2. The rezonings will not become effective nor will they be published, unless the Final PUD and Plat is approved by the City and the Final Plat is filed with Washington County for recording.



5. The Final PUD application material must include calculations for the 25% impervious surface area for the entire development. The 25% impervious surface areas shall be delineated with the proposed Final Plat boundaries.

Croix Bay Concept PUD, Page 2 of 3


7. A Brown’s Creek Watershed District permit shall be obtained prior to final plat approval by the City Council.

8. The main structure shall not be increased in height greater than three stories and 40’10” from the ground grade of the front of the building.

9. The ancillary structures of Grace Baptist Church and mixed use and Independent Living III shall be limited to the Lakeshore Residential Zoning District height maximums.

10. A 10% reduction in the total number of parking stalls shall be permitted in the Final PUD. The total number of stalls necessary for the development shall be determined at the time of Final PUD approval.


12. A landscaping plan with a detailed planting list must be approved. 13. A total of 50% open space area shall be depicted on the Final PUD, and the

open space calculations must be approved the DNR. 14. The trail alignment in conformance with the Brown’s Creek Watershed

District’s wetland buffer setback, and determined acceptable by the City of Stillwater, will be submitted at the time of Final PUD submittal.









21. Ownership of the main access road to the project shall be determined prior to the submittal of the Final PUD.

Croix Bay Concept PUD, Page 3 of 3

22. The private land upon which 72nd Street North and its related improvements and drainage ditches are situated shall be platted and dedicated to the City. This shall be identified on the preliminary plat.

23. Requirements for utility connections of all existing structures shall be determined prior to the submittal of the Final PUD.


25. A tree preservation plan along the western edge of Building IL3, near the adjacent property to the west, shall be submitted at the time of Preliminary Plat.

Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this _________ day of __________________, 2016.

CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor

ATTEST:

Diane F. Ward, City Clerk

ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SEC. 31-210, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is allow for greater flexibility of the requirements of Planned Unit Development for senior living projects.

1. Amending. Stillwater City Code Section 31-210(b)(6) is amended to read as follows:

Aggregate density of structures on privately or commonly owned property may only exceed the limits imposed by the zoning district if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.

a) Building heights on privately or commonly owned property may only exceed limits imposed by the zoning district if granted a Special Use Permit for senior living projects.

2. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapters 31 shall remain in full force and

effect.

3. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the law.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this _______ day of ___________, 2016. CITY OF STILLWATER ______________________________ Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTION 31-300 ENTITLED ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS

BY REZONING APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-EIGHT ACRES FROM AP – AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION

The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: Section 1. The zoning of the subject property, location of which is legally described in Exhibit A, is hereby amended to LR, Lakeshore Residential. This proceeding is known as Planning Case No. 2016-13. Section 2. The zoning of the subject property, location of which is legally described in Exhibit B, is hereby amended to PROS, Parks, Recreation and Open Space. This proceeding is known as Planning Case No. 2016-13.

Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after publication according to law, and upon the subject property becoming part of the City of Stillwater by operational law. Section 4. In all other ways the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. Adopted by the City Council this ______ of ______________, 2016. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, City Clerk

Croix Bay Proposal

Documents

Transcript of Croix Bay Proposal