Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7
Item#'s 6.4., 6.5., of6.6. & 6.7. lkMEMORANDUM River TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Ach, City Planner7J DATE: January 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Request for Land Use Plan Amend- ment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat by Guardian Angels of Elk River, Inc., Public Hearing Case No.'s LU 97-2, ZC 97-4, CU 97-20 and P 97-12 Issue Guardian Angels of Elk River, Inc. is requesting the following applications: A. Land Use Plan Amendment, changing the land use designation from MR (Medium Density Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) and MR (Medium Density Residential) to CC (Community Commercial). B. Rezoning from R2 (Two Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). C. Preliminary Plat to subdivide approximately 11 acres into one commercial lot, one lot for assisted living, 20 townhouse lots and one lot considered common space around the townhomes. D. Conditional Use Permit for a residential and commercial planned unit development, as well as site plan approval for Phase 1 consisting of the townhomes and 60 units of the assisted living. Location The northeast corner of Highway 10 and Joplin Street • 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 •TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to Planning Commission/P 979-12 January 27, 1998 Page 2 Zoning/Land Use • R2b (Two Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential) Attachments • Parking analysis from Michael Trossen dated January 16, 1998 • Revised development plans dated January 20, 1998 • Report to the Planning Commission dated December 23, 1997, with backup material Background At the last Planning Commission meeting Guardian Angels presented their planned unit development proposal to the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held. At the meeting, there was no one that spoke during the public hearing. The Commission delayed action on Guardian Angels' requests for the following reasons: • Evaluate design of the entrance into the project. • To receive additional information on the landscape plan. • To evaluate how the need for variances can be minimized or eliminated. • Provide additional information regarding the parking demands for the • assisted living. • Adjust the driveways for the townhomes. • Research of the Shoreland Ordinance to see if it can be amended • Clarify comments in letter from DNR The Planning Commission should refer to my memo dated December 23, 1997, for an overview of the project. Revised Development Plans The revised development plans by Guardian Angels have addressed the following issues: * Separation between the townhouse units has been adjusted to accomplish a 60 foot distance allowing vehicles to utilize a standard parking lot dimension to access the townhouse garages. * The landscaping plan has been enhanced by including a significant number of overstory trees throughout the interior of the project. • \shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x4.doc Memo to Planning Commission/P 979-12 January 27, 1998 Page 3 * The footprint of the commercial building in tier 3 has been reduced from • approximately 21,500 sq. ft. to 13,000 sq. ft. and converted to a 3 story building. * The parking lot area has been increased in size to meet the parking requirements of a 43,000 sq. ft. commercial building with a parking ratio of 1 stall for every 300 sq. ft. of building area. This parking ratio is based on the city's ordinance for office buildings. If the building was to be used for medical or dental clinics, the parking ratio would be one stall for every 200 sq. ft. of floor area. * A 60 ft. drainage and utility easement has been included along the interior roadway as requested by Elk River Municipal Utilities. * A 30 ft. easement in the southeast corner of the project for emergency access and trail extension. * Redesigned the entrance off of Joplin Street frontage road to include one land entering the site, a raised median and two lanes exiting the site. Analysis III The revised development plans have done a good job in addressing several of the issues pointed out in staff's report that was presented to the Planning Commission last month. However, there are a few details that still need to be corrected on the plans and should not be problem at this point. These issues are all outlined in the report dated December 23, 1997, or in the conditions of this report. Assuming the variance to allow an increased density of 6 additional assisted living units is approved, the townhouse portion and Phase 1 of the assisted living appears to be an acceptable plan in terms of the transportation routes, building locations and setbacks being met. However, as pointed out in the variance report, the amount of impervious area which needs to be constructed to accommodate the 43,000 sq. ft. commercial building, staff still has a concern with the amount of that variance. At this point in the process, staff would recommend approving the townhomes and assisted living as proposed, however, not approving any type of concept plan for a commercial building in tier 3 or associated parking in tier 2. By not approving this component of the planned unit development master plan, it does the following: 1. Reduces the amount of impervious area in tier 2 down to a point where a variance for the assisted living could be justified. • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x4.doc Memo to Planning Commission/P 979-12 January 27, 1998 Page 4 2. Provides the opportunity for a specific commercial plan to be proposed • which may have less impervious area than the concept plan illustrates. Parking Analysis Michael Trossen has provided a parking survey of other assisted living projects. It appears other facilities have parking at 1 stall per 2 unit ratio. Based on this ratio the parking shown on the proposed site plan should be adequate. However, it is incumbent upon Guardian Angels to determine if the amount of parking is adequate regardless what the ordinance may require. On street parking in this complex may be restricted as requested by the Fire Chief. * 80 units proposed * 1 space/2 units * 40 stalls required * 60 stalls provided Project Entrance The entrance has been redesigned to accommodate additional vehicles leaving the site. Terry Maurer will be analyzing the trips generated from the • entire complex, including 43,000 square feet of office/medical, to make sure the entrance will be adequate. Landscaping The plan has obviously increased the quantity of landscape material. Two areas need additional attention: * Along the west property line where the project abuts single family residential. * Strategic locations along the lake and between the units. This is required as part of the increased density along the lake. Building Elevations No building elevations have been submitted for review. Michael Trossen has verbally explained what the building may look like; however, no plans are available at this time. The Commission may wish to discuss this further at Tuesday's meeting. S f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x4.doc Memo to Planning Commission/P 979-12 January 27, 1998 Page 5 Please refer to the staff report dated December 23, 1997 for further • information. Summary The Planning Commission has four applications to consider this evening: land use plan amendment, zone change, conditional use permit and preliminary plat. There is also a two-part variance applications which will be acted on separately, however has a direct influence on the plan which will be approved. The land use plan amendment and rezoning work together to coincide with the proposed plan submitted by Guardian Angels. With planned unit development the Commission has the discretion to approve the PUD rezoning based upon an acceptable plan. The property is currently zoned R2b which is a two family residential zoning district. Based on the planned unit development, a portion of the property will be changed to accommodate a commercial component. As shown on the proposed development plans, this could possibly be a 43,000 sq. ft. building if the variance to exceed the maximum impervious area is granted. I mention this because the Commission will be addressing the issue regarding the variance of the 25% impervious area which is necessitated in a great deal by the commercial development. If the Commission sees that the commercial component of the PUD demands too great of a variance from the Shoreland • Ordinance, the planned unit development can be adjusted to reduce the amount of commercial. Other than this issue, staff believes the request to a planned unit development is the best zoning option, given the makeup of the project with or without a commercial component. As far as the conditional use permit and preliminary plat requests, these two applications will be used to approve the plans for the planned unit development as well as the platting of the property which will be consistent with the building configurations and the lot layout. The conditional use permit will specifically approve the overall concept plan and at the request of Guardian Angels, approve their first phase which are the townhomes and 60 units of assisted living. The additional 20 units of assisted living and any commercial component will require a conditional use permit at a later date. Recommendation A. Recommend approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment from MR (Medium Density Residential) and HR (High Density Residential) and HB (Highway Business) based on the following findings: • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x4.doc Memo to Planning Commission/P 979-12 January 27, 1998 Page 6 1. The land use plan amendment is consistent with the proposed • planned unit development. 2. Land Use Amendment provides a tiering of intense land use adjacent to highway intersection to a lower density adjacent to the lake. 3. The land use amendment is consistent with the City's land use plan strategy to focus commercial at signalized intersections and having complimentary land uses surround the commercial. B. Rezoning from R2 (Two Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) based on the following findings: 1. Recent frontage road improvements have changed the character of the property to warrant a rezoning. 2. A planned unit development allows a comprehensive review of developing the property. 3. Rezoning will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 4. The existing frontage road has been designed to accommodate • an increased density of development on this site. * The land use plan amendment and rezoning are recommended assuming the Planning Commission determines a commercial component of"some" size can take place. C. Recommend approval of Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. A Developer's Agreement and Planned Unit Development Agreement be signed and recorded along with the plat. 2. All comments from Terry Maurer's dated December 18, 1997 be incorporated into the plat for approval. 3. An NPDES permit be obtained prior to commencing grading on- site. 4. Appropriate easements be dedicated on the plat. This includes increasing the easement along the private streets to 60 feet in width. 111 \shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x4.doc Memo to Planning Commission/P 979-12 January 27, 1998 Page 7 0 5. A complete grading/drainage plan along with calculations be provided for staff review. All ponds and storm sewer system must be consistent with easements on plat. 6. Plat approval is contingent upon the land use plan amendment, rezoning and conditional use permit for a planned unit development being approved. 7. Association documents shall be reviewed by City and DNR prior to recording the plat with Sherburne County and receiving site plan approval. 8. Park dedication fees be paid for the townhome units and commercial property. The fees will be based on the rate at the time of final plat and shall be paid prior to releasing the plat for recording. 9. Water Available Charge be paid to Elk River Municipal Utilities prior to releasing the plat for recording. 10. Applicant consult with Elk River Utilities for any additional . charges relating to utility installation or hookup charges. 11. Surface Water Management fee be paid prior to releasing the plat for recording. The fee will be based on the land use approved as part of the PUD. 12. According to the Shoreland Ordinance certain criteria to preserve and maintain the open space of the PUD must occur. These guidelines will need to be met and made part of the plat where applicable. D. Recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit for master plan approval of Orono Lake Development and Phase I including 60 units of assisted living and 20 townhome units, with the following conditions: 1. Comments outlined in Terry Maurer's letter dated December 18, 1997 be incorporated into the plans for approval. 2. A complete landscaping plan be provided for Phase I of the project. This plan shall include additional landscaping along Lake Orono and along the west property lines. • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x4.doc Memo to Planning Commission/P 979-12 January 27, 1998 Page 8 3. Elevations of the assisted living and townhome units shall be 410 submitted for review. 4. The townhomes along the lake shall be a single story structure, assisted living be no higher than a two-story building, and the commercial building be limited to 40 feet in height. 5. All electrical transformers must be a minimum of 10 feet from the building, unless a non-flammable wall is constructed per building code. 6. All areas disturbed by grading shall be reestablished with topsoil and vegetation. 7. Either the plans be modified to meet the maximum 25% impervious area in Tiers 2 and 3 or a variance be granted. 8. All of the comments outlined in the site plan review section of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated December 23, 1997 be incorporated into the development plans. 9. The number of docks allowed on Lake Orono be limited to one 110 for the assisted living and one for every two townhome units. 10. Signage for the townhouse and assisted living consist of monument style signs. A complete sign package should be submitted along with the final development plans. 11. Signage for the commercial component of the PUD shall be a monument style sign. The specific size and area will be reviewed at the time of a specific development proposal. 12. The approved concept plan for the planned unit development applies only to the townhome (20 units) and assisted living component (80 units). The commercial component will be reviewed at a later date and a specific square footage will be approved at that time. 13. The commercial component of the PUD shall be limited to the uses allowed in the C2 (Office District) section of the zoning ordinance. • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x4.doc Memo to Planning Commission/P 979-12 January 27, 1998 Page 9 14. An emergency/trail corridor be constructed in the southeast corner of the project connecting the Elk Motel driveway with Orono Lake Development. III ID f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x4.doc TROSSFLN WRIGHT ARCHITECTS P.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Sherry EmersonMutterer Guardian Angels 350 Evans Avenue Elk River, Minnesota 55330 FROM: Mr. Michael Trossen Trossen Wright Architects, P.A. 405 Sibley Street, Suite 230 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 DATE: January 16, 1998 RE: Parking Statistics—Projects Throughout Minnesota The following is the outcome of research conducted by our office on the statistics for both assisted and congregate living projects throughout Minnesota. This listing is a combination of projects done by both Trossen Wright, as well as other sites we have personally visited over the past several weeks. • Assisted Living Units Parking Stalls Rosewood Estates 100 52 Roseville, Minnesota Rosewood Estates 100 37 Saint Paul, Minnesota Rosewood Estates 106 54 Maplewood, Minnesota Homestead at Maplewood 62 38 Maplewood, Minnesota Heritage Living Center 18 14 Houston, Minnesota River Heights 60 30 (9)._49) South Saint Paul, Minnesota (Proposed) (Proposed) Assumption Court 35 22 405 SIBLEY STREET Cold Spring, Minnesota SUITE 230 ST PAUL, MN 55101 1612) 222 1244 Ms. Sherry EmersonMutterer Guardian Angels January 16, 1998 Page 2 • Evergreen Place 24 19 Pine Island, Minnesota Saint Anthony Health Center 26 9 Saint Anthony, Minnesota Congregate Living Units Parking Stalls Willow Wood Apartments 46 36 White Bear Lake, Minnesota Shepherd Oak 46 31 Sauk Rapids, Minnesota Angel Ridge Apartments 54 17 Elk River, Minnesota Lilac Parkway 44 26 Robbinsdale, Minnesota Summit Point 29 20 Edina, Minnesota • Pleasant Place 24 12 Rogers, Minnesota Maple Terrace 38 19 Maple Plain, Minnesota Rose Court 16 12 Pierz, Minnesota • c:lorojeclslguardangeliorono l ach • Guardian Angels on the Lake Nurse Staffing Patterns for the Assisted Living Facility Proposed staffing for 60 Units: Daytime shift: 7 to 10 staff total Evening shift: 3 staff total Night shift: 1 staff total Proposed staffing for 80 Units: Daytime shift: 10 to 12 staff total Evening shift: 4 to 5 staff total Night shift: 1 to 2 staff total These numbers are based on an average acuity level of assisted living residents. These numbers could vary slightly as the acuity level fluctuates. • Administrative Staffing Patterns for Assisted Living Project Daytime Shift: 2 Staff total Dietary Staffing Patterns for Assisted Living Project: Daytime Staffing: 3 Staff total Maximum total staff: 17 Staff at any time 1-19-98 • mak/ `\ \..4 ( Item#'s 6.3 thru 6.6. lei / MEMORANDUM RiverTO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Ach, City Planner<. DATE: December 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Request for Land Use Plan Amend- ment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat by Guardian Angels of Elk River, Public Hearing Case No.'s LU 97-2, ZC 97-4, CU 97-20 and P 97-12 Issue Guardian Angels of Elk River is requesting the following applications: A. Land Use Plan Amendment, changing the land use designation from • MR (Medium Density Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) and MR (Medium Density Residential) to HB (Highway Business). B. Rezoning from R2 (Two Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). C. Preliminary Plat to subdivide approximately 11 acres into one commercial lot, one lot for assisted living and 20 townhouse lots. D. Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use planned unit development and site plan approval for Phase 1. Location The northeast corner of Highway 10 and Joplin Street Zoning/Land Use R2b (Two Family Residential) /MR (Medium Density Residential) • 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 •TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 2 Attachments • • Report from the City Engineer • Location map • Zoning map • Land use plan map • Development plans • Letter from the DNR dated December 19, 1997, and October 22, 1997 • Letter from MN/DOT dated July 14th • Planned unit development evaluation Overview The subject property is bordered by Highway 10 on the south, Joplin frontage road and single family residential on the west, and Lake Orono along the north and east. The property is currently vacant. The property's frontage on Lake Orono has some existing vegetation as well as the area along Highway 10. An existing storm drainage pond is located in the southwest corner of the site which is shared with the adjacent property and serves as a water quality pond for runoff from the Joplin Street frontage road. As part of the Joplin Street frontage road project, a curb cut into the subject property was installed to correspond with Guardian Angels proposed plans for the site. There is also a curb cut in the southeast corner of the property from Highway 10. This • driveway serves as access into the Elk Motel. An easement between Guardian Angels and the motel is in place for the driveway. Shoreland Ordinance The Department of Natural Resources has specific classifications for different types of water bodies throughout the City of Elk River. Lake Orono is considered a general development lake which has certain restrictions that extend 1,000 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark of the lake. The Guardian Angels parcel is completely within the 1,000 foot distance. Therefore, development of the parcel will be subject to certain shoreland management ordinances and criteria to preserve the integrity of the natural resource (Lake Orono) and make sure development is compatible with its surroundings. The first guideline reviewed for the proposed planned unit development was to establish the required development tiers from Lake Orono. The development tiers are measured in 200 foot increments and radiate out away from the lake. The subject property actually has four tiers; however, all development is occurring on the first three tiers. (See attached map). • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 3 The shoreland ordinance provides for a certain amount of density or 0 development in each tier. Some of the "base density" may be transferred from one tier to the next. In no case shall density be transferred to a tier closer to the lake. Besides the "base density" an increased density can be achieved by meeting various performance standards. These performance standards include open space, storm water management, vegetative protection and amount of impervious area. Attached to this report is a density evaluation form prepared by Guardian Angels' architects to determine allowable development. The Commission can also refer to Section 904.14 of the Zoning Ordinance to review criteria for calculating base density within each tier. Impervious Area The Shoreland Ordinance requires a maximum impervious area (i.e., buildings, parking and driveways) of 25% in tiers 2 and 3. The proposed plans exceed this performance standard. If the plans cannot be modified to meet this requirement a variance will be necessary. In discussing this issue with the DNR, both staffs believe the intent of the Shoreland Ordinance is being met even though the impervious area exceeds 25%. The intent is to treat storm water run-off from this development so it 1110 has no impact on the natural resource. The ponds are designed for a 100 year events and capture 90% of the water from the site excepting the area between the townhomes and lake. A condition will be attached requiring a variance be received prior to final approval of the development plans. Planned Unit Development The application submitted by Guardian Angels is for a mixed use planned unit development. The three components of the project consist of townhomes (residential), assisted living (commercial), and future commercial building (commercial). A great deal of discussion took place between Guardian Angels, the City and the DNR to determine which components of the planned unit development would be considered commercial and which would be considered residential. Clearly, the proposed commercial building would be interpreted as the commercial component and the townhomes were clearly a residential component. The gray area centered around the assisted living located in the central part of the project. After much discussion, the DNR submitted a letter dated October 22, 1997, and it was determined the assisted living would be reviewed as a commercial component of the planned • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 4 unit development. For all practical purposes the PUD has become a hybrid which was a challenge to administratively apply interpretation from the 110 ordinance. As with all planned unit developments, there is an overall master plan which is reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. This master plan is a representation of how the entire parcel will be developed and acts as a guide for future phases of the development. As each phase of the planned unit development is scheduled to occur, specific plans will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. Guardian Angels is asking to have their master plan approved as well as Phase 1 which consists of the townhouse units and 60 units of the assisted living. The remaining 20 units of the assisted living and the commercial building will be reviewed at a later date when those phases are proposed to be developed. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning The land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are being requested to rezone the property from R2b (Two Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The planned unit development designation was chosen to allow for a more comprehensive review of developing the entire 11.7 acre • parcel. In addition, the property is proposed to be utilized with a variety of uses which do not fit into any one zoning designation other than the planned unit development. Under the present zoning, the only component of the proposed project that could be developed would be the townhomes. The proposed rezoning to planned unit development, based on the proposed development plan with a mixture of residential, multi-family and a medium commercial component, appears to provide compatibility with surrounding land uses and the natural environment of Lake Orono. The tiering of development away from Lake Orono with low density residential, high density residential and commercial is consistent with the land use strategy of having the commercial concentrated at the lighted intersections and compatible land uses surrounding those commercial nodes. It is also consistent with the Shoreland Regulations. Plat The plat includes an area of approximately 11.7 acres and is consistent with the proposed planned unit development. The plat basically includes one commercial lot with an area of 2.97 acres, one lot for the assisted living (3.17 acres), and 21 lots for the townhouse component. Each of the townhouse buildings will be platted into two separate lots with a zero lot line allowing f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 5 each unit to be sold individually. There will also be a lot which accompanies all of the common space surrounding the townhomes. 111 Outlot The plat also indicates an outlot along the west portion of the plat. This outlot is the location of the existing storm drainage pond and the area needed to expand the pond. Outlots are typically remnants of a plat that are large enough for future development consideration or too small for further development. The outlot shown in the proposed plat is exclusively used for ponding. Since the pond is integral to the development and to avoid the outlot going tax forfeit, the outlot should be eliminated a combined with one of the lots in the project. MN/DOT Review The plat has been reviewed be MN/DOT and their issue is directed towards access onto the state highway. The project is not proposing any new access drives onto Highway 10 which conforms with MN/DOT's goals of preserving a limited access highway. The existing driveway in the southeast corner of the property provides access to the motel. This driveway may be discussed further if the motel ever expands or alternative access can be achieved. Roads/Easements All of the roads within the development are proposed to be private. The utilities (sewer, water, electric, etc.) will be public, similar to Country Crossing Townhomes and Cottages of Elk River. Easements are shown throughout the plat corresponding to utility extensions to serve all components of the project. The easements and utilities typically follow the private streets. In order to build the street and utilities in the same easement a total of 60 feet is necessary. Because the street is proposed to be a similar width as a public design, the same amount of boulevard area is required for all the utilities. Townhomes and Assisted Living The 20 townhome units will have a floor area of approximately 1326 square feet and garage area of 473 square feet. Garages will be accessed off small driveways that are shared by two units. Staff has not seen building elevations of the townhomes; therefore, cannot comment on the type of building material or appearance the units will have towards the lake. It is anticipated the townhomes will be single story buildings. The assisted living 40 f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 6 building includes a total of 80 living units, kitchen, dining area, general office space for administration, therapy, home health, crafts and recreation and IPparlor. Each of the assisted living units have an area of approximately 480 square feet. This building is proposed to be a two-story structure. Site Plan Review • Parking/Circulation 1. The design of the entrances off Joplin frontage road will need to be reviewed to determine the appropriate width and striping of lanes. 2. It is unclear why the parking lot serving the commercial building has a "curvilinear design". Consideration should be given to provide a more conventional design. 3. Several of the driveways entering the townhomes have difficult turning movements to enter the garages. This should be reviewed to try and improve this turning movement. 4. The distance between the garages on units 16 and 17 and 14 and 15 is about 45 feet. It may be difficult for a resident to enter or back out of these driveways if a vehicle is parked in the opposing driveway. A • desirable distance between garages should be 60-65 feet. 5. The Fire Chief has requested an emergency access be provided from the driveway to the motel. The access drive will be used for only emergencies. Furthermore, the access drive can double as a pedestrian trail as requested by the Park & Recreation Commission. 6. Depending upon the type of commercial business, parking will need to be provided in accordance with the City ordinance. Currently there is not enough parking shown to serve the commercial building. 7. The Fire Chief has indicated a possible need for no parking signs throughout the project. This will need to be monitored and signs will have to be installed if a problem arises. 8. All parking and driveways shall be bounded with concrete curb and gutter (B612). 9. The radius of the private street should be increased to allow larger delivery trucks and emergency vehicles easier access throughout the site. • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 7 • Pedestrian Circulation • 1. The master plan shows sidewalk throughout the project. It would be recommended the sidewalks be set back from the curb five to seven feet, allowing enough room for boulevard trees to be planted. 2. As mentioned above, the Park and Recreation Commission would like to have a trail extended east from this property to the Elk River Bowl. Guardian Angels can begin this extension by constructing a short segment in the southeast corner of their site. This trail may be extended to the Bowling Alley with the watermain extension. (refer to Terry Maurer's memo for more information). • Landscaping 1. A detailed landscaping plan has not been submitted for review. The master plan illustrates a general planting scheme of boulevard trees along the private streets. A complete plan will need to be submitted for Phase I of the project. 2. In accordance with the Shoreland Ordinance, additional landscaping will be required as a design criteria for allowing increased density. The Shoreland Ordinance speaks to specific vegetative treatment that • should be incorporated. 3. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the west property line which is adjacent to a single family zoning district. 4. Underground irrigation shall be provided throughout all landscaped areas. 5. The existing vegetation along Lake Orono shall not be disturbed. The Shoreland Ordinance requires the natural vegetation within the shore impact zone be maintained to prevent erosion, buffer to the lake, etc. 6. The conifer trees along Highway 10 provide a desirable buffer to the planned unit development. These trees should be saved. A permit from MN/DOT is needed is removal is going to occur. 7. Additional landscaping around the ponds will need to be considered to assist the water management plans and meet criteria for increased densities. • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 8 • Refuse Collection/Mail Delivery • 1. It is not clear where refuse collection will occur for the commercial and assisted living. This will need to be shown on revised plans. 2. Location of mailboxes should be considered. A cluster mailbox design will be recommended. • Lighting A complete lighting plan shall be provided illustrating lighting contours, foot candle measurements and types and sizes of lights. Recommendation The plans currently lack a lot of the detail that the Planning Commission typically has a chance to review. However, if the Planning Commission is comfortable forwarding this project on to the City Council, staff recommends the following conditions: A. Recommend approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment from MR (Medium Density Residential) and HR (High Density Residential) and HB (Highway Business) based on the following findings: • 1. The land use plan amendment is consistent with the proposed planned unit development. 2. Land Use Amendment provides a tiering of intense land use adjacent to highway intersection to a lower density adjacent to the lake. 3. The land use amendment is consistent with the City's land use plan strategy to focus commercial at signalized intersections and having complimentary land uses surround the commercial. B. Rezoning from R2 (Two Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) based on the following findings: 1. Recent frontage road improvements have changed the character of the property to warrant a rezoning. 2. A planned unit development allows a comprehensive review of developing the property. • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 9 3. Rezoning will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. • 4. The existing frontage road has been designed to accommodate an increased density of development on this site. C. Recommend approval of Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. A Developer's Agreement and Planned Unit Development Agreement be signed and recorded along with the plat. 2. All comments from Terry Maurer's dated December 18, 1997 be incorporated into the plat for approval. 3. An NPDES permit be obtained prior to commencing grading on- site. 4. Appropriate easements be dedicated on the plat. This includes increasing the easement along the private streets to 60 feet in width. 5. A complete grading/drainage plan along with calculations be provided for staff review. All ponds and storm sewer system • must be consistent with easements on plat. 6. Plat approval is contingent upon the land use plan amendment, rezoning and conditional use permit for a planned unit development being approved. 7. Association documents shall be reviewed by City and DNR prior to recording the plat with Sherburne County and receiving site plan approval. 8. Park dedication fees be paid for the townhome units and commercial property. The fees will be based on the rate at the time of final plat and shall be paid prior to releasing the plat for recording. 9. Water Available Charge be paid to Elk River Municipal Utilities prior to releasing the plat for recording. 10. Applicant consult with Elk River Utilities for any additional charges relating to utility installation or hookup charges. • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc Memo to the Planning Commission/P 97-12 December 23, 1997 Page 10 11. Surface Water Management fee be paid prior to releasing the plat for recording. The fee will be based on the land use • approved as part of the PUD. 12. According to the Shoreland Ordinance certain criteria to preserve and maintain the open space of the PUD must occur. These guidelines will need to be met and made part of the plat where applicable. D. Recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit for master plan approval of Orono Lake Development and Phase I including 60 units of assisted living and 20 townhome units, with the following conditions: 1. Comments outlined in Terry Maurer's letter dated December 18, 1997 be incorporated into the plans for approval. 2. A complete landscaping plan be provided for Phase I of the project. This plan shall include additional landscaping along Lake Orono and along the west property lines. 3. Elevations of the assisted living and townhome units shall be submitted for review. • 4. The townhomes along the lake shall be a single story structure, assisted living be no higher than a two-story building, and the commercial building be limited to 40 feet in height. 5. All electrical transformers must be a minimum of 10 feet from the building, unless a non-flammable wall is constructed per building code. 6. All areas disturbed by grading shall be reestablished with topsoil and vegetation. 7. Either the plans be modified to meet the maximum 25% impervious area in Tiers 2 and 3 or a variance be granted. 8. All of the comments outlined in the site plan review section of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated December 23, 1997 be incorporated into the development plans. 9. The number of docks allowed on Lake Orono be limited to one for the assisted living and one for every two townhome units. • f:\shrdoc\planning\pc\p97-12x3.doc grip Tio--- prrh f LA , __,__..... #1.... :I ' i at. 4.1:1,4131: hiliiMiiii ". III ifINA 4 111111m1--::--liaa."----------------- . ' Ism •• -- ------- -----------•.-.7"g. -0',AIIIIIIL' itratifg,. imp EH ,,,,T.ei 1,.. ,, 0 Inn Inn Fgim.4ium Ilidr- ttoPeu,„4. 111 . ..., r.,,,,,, ...,. .. kftlInlailimmilinifi" .mode lit milmnprquano. ARM rffli .:::::=, imillik ----- r)piiliy,;,-.., . .,e,it) .,,./.roiliii,vigji Orcrivo$ LOCATION .. -I. ... --. -"' I n._... •••- RAell;b',lliaMp, W . __ ....,c).‘"-,',._)_0_AAir-as..•ih.,F,.N_...E...I...-1.,i,..,,.11...i-1., .1gIM1.zN.=.,!!:.1!2af1'y 1,s0'••,1,..•'••,••t,.v,;e1:tt24ul.,,.ti.4..1w•4,W4',w, A.1 1110 • •,. LAKE Tar 2.1141.49% ••41 it".b it*''• ° cf". " 11441ta ii •:41420111 e A ........ t'llZaimill tel Id ii.. N --........ , /,. 'mos _ -g 1 1112-r- g IMO i - LAKE --'''X= 's. '•4 AlItrakstolipii, cti;r„.. *wax.,,,N144.111 Aiiits*.. R2b ..,...:,,p,.;a _.__:_--.----=, ._.„ _._ _ ._ ...._. ,di.. .. ... • 1111.....4-1,eMH I. --_,-,ZL.., -L'Aitr.= . ,-.= As s• 11;c:roue 5,1_____ .--bi . Ric °Row .•14-. Nj::',4i..,• ‘0J.,,,,o -, ......"-Ata, cid .,.., ilitik rAbt i, • .1: iti,ivNt. • Er E— Art 4 BP ,.:.,,,, fililill II , . r:011-,P 4,,,. . It Ail'4149. . 0 c*--J41. 11•2 •":`,..., %ft' ' -,4111 say =L. Los-i Ezzis IR-pr. ... „.r.„I...a,;,,r, ,.,,,o§.,„_mkow . en r.:040 NM ----! a -"Am'Pt?e..1 :ZigVIII7-...-ellt 1‘..t ty,1160' E .1111.6 417P sior ::." et;laplj ligniffrrie.-1,,,e IlenrsPlit MVO', IHNE011 Tod 31 - . e0a4wtt- Rjc EL:lasa ea lip. .r. si,•%T'.. lig •gag ria 21.11i 1".-"" •111 •-• IT Illft,,-7.:CAA is iiiiips IN r:r,,,...,:34.81wi . . ram gra "Air! g."7 • if:Vilim.6, ritvioglit. A 0 - sa I: 4" fra 111' 0 •' Pe maar.00- it NMI.. 1-411:k-ir-' 4mItrYfl im. .,ila rum :41:1 Alai - 0 fill Ili mums ,erktitroommiLe aikazishiall410 tte4:%"4 my, doil - ...._ • 4 ,a,•NW,,Ft. 1.1 IF .4 SE11111117EMIIIII il tir,-49-rmr-lktirk: rivololaPt , , ‘4••••F e#;11 Er wzretvil sia , Essentiulet of:Etzei° /4 e .41%et nr. kle44 101 iii, -._ri;irli I murwttpluit .... /*• \ - kir, ba. ,,. it a •7 rent ,IIP.T*Os4. wiPito,1 • Ric Sh1:11111111 kNen ma - ..‘".°".. .1-. )--Ariniren- • ......, nittitia; mini Paw Plotteilai;lAttoptAsPaall is gi NV ' 44 06.- g Itimuut _ 4 4413111114/01K"--1- 1 . g - c ;). , Nz....... D , ( / ZONING N i '-'‘ City of 1 .... • MAP Ali• 00 Elk ''''':--:. River 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 CASE:LU 97. Elk River, MN 55330 CU17 °20 Ite 1 9 A . y P 97- i Z. 1 • .�"Q. ,Lii------..--- 61.ri? ,.,,, 4firlj f 5�.� .I}; ; II. I i `fie:: 11 • LOCATION ' )' en' ' .,„,,, ..�xilily fliiiipoom a ff. _ . ,..1 ELK LAKE O ZIP RIVER4O V _ �_�, ORONO fgP 0All I— — — PARK, .- 11 � 47 AI -..- HRIrlar 3 ' 466 ftii. _________, M iiiirlOilik....11114 I cl� — LAKE U.S. HIGHWAY 'N0. 52 ono , , _ ORONO COUNTY (�!�� L4]IEIotY COUNTYLI �j BUSINESS CEN • „ FAIRSOFTBALL ARK ,o4,.` Attr COURT n: I �� z I CITY `'3 GROUNDS HALL �j 1 HOUSE Iwo" P � (�l SI'‘ ..'4 4-, 9.t- �� 0 , ) I oRo., It Am At,: . . . EL., 41.443 a _ o OP1)N!1 Peaty y Z - 2Yt(1 PIP t t "'hV y° PARK 1 PARK 'j ^C. _ , \ fl,•hlll,Vl.'.0 ['/to,.,% en [I! 9 --444d 211Fir t x • , . • ::: ‘`," sig 7.:-.. ,, ,,. . 4P4. 9,53 lit . i , 111 ' 181Nr. UE *PPP/ rf bC /' 1824) A, NW\ O {'�,0. % i�am' 1 En w LC.:, } RSP y'SPP\ ' In ,, I J cL-- PARK 1 4`S S , w - �' an/OWN. as----� O ' _. Z r,� "I 3 •,1. /Lf* 1 seri `/ -if ar in -, k. -"/,114.09,w 9P - it-- y cs �pA11111ftt JiliN4 AIM El --::-.. LI I�' ''�� 0 = ._ y 'n : __ • in -�i/� ait: . .„,,,,;., 7.„, ,„„, , ,.::. ,,, . .....! osst 4k, 411117 ta 6airgillat illrb% W.1 ‘,"-::---. z MI 11"44 lisogr it , I; 0 Erw A i i imolai. 113.10.11,„,j11 BE, _.....altakX / MR ..**/.7.011 .407 gap si. . Eh :14440 / II.: fait xPp/ f } ,-RIVERVIEW DRIVE /,tf } Pk./ ---.\-( \,. LAND USE N City of � IVIAP Elii;, k diver 13065 Orono Parkway •P.O. Box 490 c�9T•Zo CASE: Elk River, MN 55330 41.169 L tClaii)97% i P9'7• it. DEC-19-1997 E19 32 P.03/E15 1117; 40? -- gSt '- Howard R. Green Company �; NIERS CONSULTING ENGINEERS . elkci FormerlyMSA MSA Consulting Engineers December 18, 1997 File: 230:69-11 Mr. Steve Ach City Planner City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway . P. O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330-0490 RE: OF:ONO LAKE DEVELOPMENT GUARDIAN ANGELS OF ELK RIVER Dear Mr. Ach: As requested, we have reviewed the submittal made by the Guardian Angels of Elk River concerning their Orono Lake Development. As you are aware, this project is located north of TH 10 adjacent to Lake Orono at the Joplin Street intersection. Based on our review, comments received Cit the staff review meeting, and a meeting held with representatives of Guardian Angels and their architect, we would offer the following comments: A. General 1. The submittal package consisted of a campus/landscape plan, grading and drainage plan, a utility plan, and a preliminary plat. The campus/landscape plan was prepared by Trossen Wright Architects. The grading and drainage, and utility plan were prepared by Paramount Engineering and Design. The preliminary plat was prepared by John Oliver and Associates. There were also drainage calculations submitted that were prepared by Paramount Engineering and Design. 2. The proposed project consists of 20 townhome units adjacent to Lake Orono, 80 assisted living units in the center part of the parcel, and a commercial building adjacent to TH 10 and Joplin Street shown to be 43,000 sq. ft. in size. B. Campus Plan/Landscape Plan • 1. It is our understanding that this project, as with other similar projects in the City, will have publicly owned and maintained sanitary sewer and water service but privately owned streets and storm drainage system. • • 132E.Energy Park Drive • St.Paul.MN 55108 • 612/644-4389 fax 612/644-9446 toll free 800/888-2923 DEC-15-1557 05:32 P.e2/05 December 18, 1997 Mr. Steve Ach Page Twc 2. It appears the most southerly street, that will serve the commercial lot and the front of the assisted living, will be 32 feet wide. It appears the remainder of the street system, which services primarily the townhome units, will be slightly narrower scaling 30-feet. At the staff review meeting, the fire chief raised a question regarding emergency vehicle access should there be any need for on- street parking. We would recommend that parking be monitored on the southerly 32-foot wide street and if it becomes a problem the street be signed for parking only on the north side. It would seem that some on street parking for guests at the townhome units would not be a major disruption. 3. The width of the access road from this site to Joplin Street appears to be 32-feet wide. This would provide for two lanes of traffic, one inbound and one outbound. Consideration should be given to whether or not a wider entrance will be required. Perhaps two lanes of out bound traffic would better serve the site so that in peak times, when vehicles will have to wait to make a left turn out of the site, vehicles wanting to turn right could move more freely. Also, if the access road is widened to provide three lanes of traffic, consideration should be given to providing a raised concrete median that will help to define the inbound and outbound traffic lanes. 4. The site only has one means of access for emergency vehicles, a secondary access should be provided. At the staff review meeting, we discussed the ability to provide an emergency vehicle access at the southeast corner of the site where • the entrance to the Elk Motel exists. This could be in the form of a bituminous trail from the road system to the Elk Motel entrance. This bituminous trail would have to be built heavy enough to support emergency vehicles and perhaps some type of barrier to prevent normal vehicle traffic from using this emergency access. 5. Some of the intersections internal to this site appear to have radii that will make turning movements difficult. We would suggest that turning radii be applied to the intersections and modifications be made where necessary to provide for ease of vehicle traffic. 6. The townhome units have garages that are entered from the side of the unit, not directly from the street. This works in most cases but there are some exceptions. The most westerly townhome unit does not appear to have sufficient room for backing out of or entering the garage. Also, the townhome units that are on the curbed part of the street have very tight driveways. It appears that if a vehicle were parked in front of one of the garages it would preclude movements into the opposite garage or the additional stall in the unit that the vehicle is parked by. These need to be looked at carefully, essentially applying parking lot standards, there should be 64-feet from garage door to garage door. This would allow 20- feet from the garage door for parking of vehicles outside and 24-feet for maneuvering between two parked vehicles. • -oward R.Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS DEC-19-1997 09:33 P.04/05 December 18, 1997 Mr. Steve Ach • Page Three C. Grading and Drainage Plan 1. The drainage calculations that were supplied adequately address both the quality and quantity issues and are therefore acceptable. 2. It appears that the emergency overflow from the catch basins, located along the northern street alignment, would be through the townhouse parking area, over the curb, and to Lake Orono. This emergency overflow is adequate, however, the City ordinance requires the adjacent housing unit to have their lowest floor set at an elevation that would be 1-foot above the emergency overflow. The emergency overflow elevation should be clearly marked on the plan and the adjacent housing unit should be set 1 foot above. 3. We assume that the City will be responsible for maintenance of the storm water pond relative to the operation of the storm sewer system. However, Guardian Angels should maintain ownership of the land that the pond sits on, and be responsible for routine maintenance such as; grass cutting and litter pick-up. Therefore, it may be better if this area is not platted as an outlot so there is no risk that in the future it will go tax forfeit and have to be picked up by the City due to the storm water ponds. D. Utility Plan 1, Sanitary Sewer service is provided to the site by extending an 8-inch gravity • sanitary sewer from the manhole located in Joplin Street at the access point to the site. Gravity sanitary sewer then is extended northerly and easterly to provide access to all of the units. It appears that the sanitary sewer may need to be extended slightly to provide access to each of the townhouse units. 2. . Watermain is shown as a 6-inch line looped through the site. At the staff review meeting, it was discussed that an 8-inch loop would be required on the most southerly road system and to the southeast corner of the property. Revisions should be included in the internal water system for future looping of the water system, at the northwesterly corner of the property where it abuts the Hartman parcel and at the southeastern corner of the property where it abuts the Elk Motel entrance. An additional hydrant should be installed along the northerly route at approximately the mid-point between the two hydrants that are shown. There will also need to be a hydrant provided on the southern part of the commercial building. In fact, there is a watermain stub off of the Joplin Street watermain at approximately this location that could be used to extend into the site for the placement of this hydrant. At the staff review meeting the issue of fire flow at this development was discussed relative to whether or not the watermain needs to be looped. After the staff review meeting, Bryan Adams from the Elk River Municipal Utilities did a flow test on one of the hydrants and determined that currently the flow is approximately 2,500 gallons per minute. We also plugged in this development to • Howard R.Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS DEC-19-1997 09:33 P.05/05 December 18, 1997 Mr. Steve Ach Page Four • the overall watermain computer model. Based on full development and maximum day use along with a fire without looping the water system there would only be approximately 1,250 gallons per minute provided. Looping the watermain to the east thorough the Elk Motel property, to the bowling alley, would provide for over 2,500 gallons per minute. Therefore, we would recommend that as part of this project a concurrent public improvement be undertaken to loop the watermain from the Guardian Angels site to the entrance of the Elk Bowl. As you are aware, we had a meeting with the owners of the Elk Motel and they indicated their willingness to participate with this type of improvement. We would recommend that when this development receives preliminary City Council approval, the issue of initiating a public improvement to loop the watermain and possibly install sanitary sewer to the Elk Motel, be discussed with the City Council 3. Each of the townhouse units must have a separate sanitary sewer and water service provided. E. Preliminary Plat 1. As mentioned previously, we believe that the pond should not be located in an outlot. Perhaps Outlot A could just be made part of the townhome general area so that it is clearly in the ownership of Guardian Angels, at least for routine maintenance (grass cutting and litter pick-up). • 2. Easements do not need to be provided for storm sewer lines, such as in the commercial lot parking area. 3. The easement for the public utilities is shown as 25-feet wide. This area needs to be wide enough for sanitary sewer, watermain, and all of the other utilities such as gas, telephone, electric, and cable N. It should be noted that at the staff review meeting, Elk River Municipal Utilities indicated that the electric transformers need to be placed at least 10-feet away from any building or extraordinary construction methods need to be used for fire resistance. If you have any questions regarding any of these comments, please call. Sincerely, Howard R. Green Company Terry J. Maurer, P.E. TJM/et O:1p roj1230369\369-1816.dec • Howard R. Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOTAL P.05 ST . CLOUD DNR TEL :320-255-3999 Dec 19 ' 97 13 :59 No .002 P .01 MINNEso / Minnesota Department of Natural Resources I ro DNR WATERS At , 4140 THIELMAN LN., #203, ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 Phone No. (320)255-2976 December 19, 1997 Steve Ach City Planner City of Elk River P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330-0490 Dear Mr. Ach: Preliminary Plat of Orono Shores, Orono Lake (71-13P), Sherburne County Thank you for sending a copy of the proposal for our review. As you know we have worked with Guardian Angels and their consultants to develop a proposal that meets the requirements of the City including preserving the shoreland values of the property. It appears that the proposal will balance all of the requirements and still provide for the desired senior housing project. The PUD requirements in the shoreland ordinance, appear to have functioned well in helping to • create a suitable development within the context of the developers needs and the City code. I have reviewed the plan sheets and supplemental data you provided and have the following comments. First of all, the densities being proposed appear to be consistent with the shoreland ordinance. They also follow with the discussions we have had with the proposer. There is the need for a small variance to the allowable units in tier 2. This variance does not conflict with the integrity of the Shoreland Program, if the Board of Adjustment believes that a suitable hardship exists. One factor that is not discussed in the plat, is that the density multiplier requires that the building setbacks exceed the standard by 25% and that there are other methods used to screen and reduce visibility approved by the City. The most likely approach to use in this case would be to preserve and enhance the vegetative conditions of the site. Obviously views of the lake are important. Therefore a vegetation/landscape plan should include a strategy to balance the need for view with site specific plantings of mixed tree and shrub species to meet the overall intent of this section. The tier calculation tables have a couple of discrepancies that should be corrected. First of all, the tier 2 summary includes the statement that there are no commercial buildings present. This is inaccurate, since the assisted living complex is being considered a commercial building for the purposes of the PUD. In addition, the open space in tier one is more accurately stated as 51%. The proposal is a mixed use PUD. Therefore, the proposal has the characteristics and • DNR Information:612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 6I2-2%-.5464. I-xOU-(57 3929 An Equal Op,lluuily En1111oycr A Prinn:d un Itfcycictl Paper f-nmaining Vehn Value.Diversity tat Minimum o1Io'A Poo Cun.ffuf, ST . CLOUD DNR TEL : 320-255-3999 Dec 19 ' 97 13 :59 No . 002 P . 02 Preliminary Plat of Orono Shores 12/19/97, page 2 requirements of both residential and commercial PUD. The standards for stormwater management require that there be no more than 25% total impervious area within tier 2 and 3. The current proposal exceeds this requirement. In tier 1, the residential PUD language allows deviation from this standard with an approved stormwater management plan. The proposal was developed with a stormwater management system which incorporates sufficient ponding to adequately treat the generated runoff of the site. This deviation from the standards needs to be addressed, most likely with a variance. If the Board of Adjustment found that a variance was justified we would not object. However, stormwater management practices should be sufficient to have no net change on the rates and qualities of runoff from the site than would have been allowed if developed according to the standard. Lastly, the ordinance requires that there be agreements and restrictions in place governing open space and common area, maintenance and preservation. I am not sure if these have been drafted at this time. However, I recommend that any approvals be issued under the condition that these items need to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final recording. Thank you again for the chance to review the project. I appreciate your work on trying to balance the complexities of a mixed use PUD as well as the other City code requirements. This proposal has been greatly modified from it's original form and appears to strike a balance. The PUD requirements have worked well in numerous projects around the state, when the level of development is matched to the site characteristics. This site has some significant limitations for the level of development originally anticipated, which increased the amount of frustration and • tension within the process. I hope that in its final form we have an acceptable project for all the participants. Si cerely, 4.1 Larry crainka Area Hydrologist c. Michael Trossen, Trossen Wright Architects P.A. Carol Mills, Guardian Angels of Elk River David Hills, Regional Hydrologist Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist i STATE OF It Com] CESUtrLQ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 414 HIELMAN LN., #203, ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 PHONE NO.(320)255-2976 FILE NO. October 22, 1997 REC: F� � Carol Mills OCT ;? / 19.37 Executive Director ������ I Guardian Angels of Elk River GUARDIAN- 11 ,-, „ 280 Evans Av. - `; �L,t �?,tir�, Elk River, MN 55330 Dear Ms. Mills: PROPOSED SENIOR CAMPUS, LAKE ORONO (71-13P), SHERBURNE COUNTY First of all let me apologize for missing the last meeting. I was under the impression that you were going to confirm the meeting date, time and place after speaking with the city staff I also wanted to thank you for your cooperation with the city and the Department as we try to work through the remaining issues on this project. I do want to clarify some issues that seem to keep coming up. First of all, I want to reiterate that the shoreland ordinance does not appear to prohibit development of the campus. However, it does limit the densities under which this development can occur. This is also . true of the other city codes. It is also important to understand that the shoreland ordinance is meant to reduce aesthetic, as well as recreational use impacts of the shoreland and accompanying water body. The standards for PUD's allow for increased densities in part through increasing setbacks, transferring densities from near shore further back, and managing vegetation and stormwater in a collective fashion. The ordinance also provides for commercial development, with increased setbacks. The shoreland ordinance is not the only city code involved and cannot be separated from any other controls the city has. That is why I have encouraged you to include city staff in the discussions. A meaningful solution cannot be reached by breaking this into pieces. We need to make sure that in satisfying one ordinance we do not run into another problem with another section of ordinance. There has been a great deal of debate about the PUD standards and specifically whether this is commercial or residential. The letter from Ed Fick, indicated that there is clearly portions that are residential (the townhomes) and commercial (the retail/clinic). The assisted living facilities fall in between the two definitions. They have characteristics of both. However, in looking at the service and transient nature of the facility it appears to me that it is appropriate to call the assisted living commercial also. I am comfortable with treating the assisted living under the commercial PUD standards. I have never felt that it was appropriate to classify the townhomes as anything other than residential. What I have said is that if this remains to be a question, the Board of Adjustment is set up to make those interpretations, although I do not see any other way to classify the townhomes and my comments to the Board of Adjustment would be that the townhomes are clearly residential. Furthermore, because this is a mixed use PUD, the standards for commercial and residential PUD's must be applied to each portion. This does raise some questions when transferring densities from the residential portion to the commercial. Your architect has asked about whether the ordinance allows the transfer of a quad from the first tier to the second tier commercial, based on floor area rather than units. Specifically, can the four 1200 ft2 units be transferred and then converted to twelve 400 ft2 units of • AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Guardian Angels, 10/22/97 • page 2 assisted living in tier two. The answer to this question is yes. In our opinion this can be done under the present ordinance and according to the preliminary calculations this would yield an allowable density of 72 units. In order to get the 80 units you desire you would need to ask for a variance. However, considering the physical limitations of the property a minor variance of 3200 ft2 in this situation, I believe could be justified. With this clarification it appears that the shoreland ordinance will allow you to develop the 20 units of townhomes in tier one, 72 units of assisted living in tier two, and a commercial building in tier three of 43,173 ft2, without any variances to the shoreland standard. Again, please bare in mind that this assumes that all the other standards for open space, stormwater, etc... are also met as well as any other city codes. Lastly, I have checked into the issues that were brought up, regarding Cambridge. Rather than going into great detail, it appears that this would have no bearing on your situation. Specifically, the City allowed commercial development (the assisted living) to occur in an area where commercial development is prohibited (the Wild and Scenic River district). I hope that this clarifies the department position as well as allow you to go forward with design process. I strongly recommend that you work with the city staff to resolve all of the outstanding issues and not focus on the shoreland standards. Si cerely, • / Laj1--- Larry Kramka Area Hydrologist c. David Hills, Regional Hydrologist City of Elk River Michael Trossen, Trossen Wright Architects P.A. ID o s 'la Minnesota Department of Transportation District 3 °F 3725 12th St. N. Tel: 612/255-4181 P.O. Box 370 Fax: 612/255-3257 St. Cloud, MN 56302 5� Toll Free: 1/800/657-3961 • July 14, 1997 Steve Ach • City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Guardian Angels Development Near Joplin Street and Amoco food Shop Near 197th Avenue NW Dear Steve: During our tour of Elk River on July 2nd you had requested Mn/DOT input on transportation issues related to the above referenced proposed developments. Following is our input on the plans developed to date for the developments. • � els pzelc ,ment - The plan as currently drawn shows an access to Hudson Street, as wei as an access to Joplin Street. In the corridor plan developed for TH 10, emphasis was placed on developing an expressway design, where access to and from TH 10 would only occur at signalized intersections.'This plan was developed to ensure that traffic entering and exiting TH 10 would do so at locations which provided the greatest amount of safety. Considerable resources have been used to develoji Joplin Street into one of those signalized intersections. In addition to proposing a system of signalized intersections, the corridor plan also recommended closing access locations which would not be signalized. Closing of unsignalized access locations will be necessary to efficiently and safely move traffic on TH 10 as the traffic volumes grow. Although the plan recognized that not all unsignalized accesses could be closed immediately, due to existing uses of the accesses, the study did recommend that future land use decisions minimize the use of the unsignalized access points. The access at Hudson Street was specifically addressed in the corridor study on page 11 as follows: "East of Joplin Stleet, access openings will remain at Hudson Street and Gary Street. Closure of these access points may be difficult in the near future because it would be difficult to provide alternate access to the north side of TH 10. Future land use decisions, however, should fie made with the intent of minimizing the use of these accesses and eventually closing them when possible." • An equal opportunity employer The plan by Guardian Angels for access to TH 10 at Hudson Street should not be allowed for several reasons. The first is the inability to develop a reasonable spacing between the access into • the retail area and the through lanes on TH 10. Such spacing would be necessary for stacking of traffic and to provide sufficient time to make decisions. The second is that additional traffic at Hudson Street would not be compatible with the objectives of the long range corridor plans which were developed to not only safely and efficiently move traffic along the TH 10 corridor, but also to provide safe and efficient access points along TH 10. Given that the Joplin Street intersection is less than a quarter of a mile away, all traffic to and from the Guardian Angels development should use the signalized intersection at Joplin Street. If the Hudson Street access to the Guardian Angels site is allowed, Mn/DOT may have to consider removing the median crossover at Hudson Street to improve the safety and efficiency of the corridor. During the District review of the Guardian Angel's plan, an alternate was suggested which would eliminate the access at Hudson Avenue to the properties located north of TH 10. The proposal was to have a public road platted from Orono Lake Circle to the access at Hudson Street, thus providing the motel access to TH 10 via the local road system and Joplin Street. If this connection was platted, the Hudson Street access to the north side of TH 10 could be eliminated. While this would have an impact to the current site plans, it would be a pro-active step to consolidating the unsignalized access on TH 10. Amoco Food Shop - The corridor plan developed for TH 169 indicated a full access at 197th Avenue NW. Traffic volumes on TH 169 near 197th Avenue are projected to be 47,000 in the year 2015 which is at capacity for the expressway design of TH 169. Given the level of development occurring near 197th, traffic flow could also be heavy on 197th Avenue. The plans for the Amoco Food Shop as drawn show a right-in slip from 197th Avenue NW into the Amoco Food Shop. This slip begins approximately 110 feet from the edge of TH 169. Given the congestion which is likely to occur in the future, there is a need to keep 197th Avenue as free- flowing as possible near its junction with TH 169. Since the right-in slip could cause conflicts between motorists wishing to slow down to use the slip and those wishing to accelerate as they come through the intersection, its inclusion in the plan should be discouraged. Elimination of the right-in slip would help ensure that traffic on 197th Avenue remains as free flowing as possible. If you have any questions regarding the above thoughts regarding the proposed developments, please call. Sincerely, 444)C1-- Terrence J. Humbert Planning Engineer cc: G.P. Dirlam -Brainerd R.U. Busch - St. Cloud ORONO LAKE DEVELOI GUARDIAN ANGELS OF ELK RIVEF 1 0 . HKi+WATER MARK [UV•CID' 1. � �---..� • R9 - ORONO LAKE - ..,."0.2.1.! -- , LINE LL ! ., .4 Z? ARV 01 o . foo ij) o _ o®V o t STOR0 •®� o 101 0 gOalf,C\ _-• I1 0 0 S22 . / ..4 ''' -'. ;:a4fk, 0 piAl 0 0 likr. i.--.. *.-- ,,,, dik• 0 ° SI 4i7, oQ O 43, ) OO O `r • • I r � . •� 1101 ' ,• • Olt :-.',,•! r,' Pi1 r _,p ^�r Ia •• � i � • ,{� `slmto i0 ' • ip '\_: i • S 11 410 A." VO • me 0• ---- ---•- •0 W.; ,1 .1, 1/44 0 _ .0 _ 0 - * „..-: ....ii \---1 fori,41 0 -*. A11,._ - \_, 4� o ® � _,. p00 011t - .0i 4, _ iv - � � - . 0 -- U / • • POW ler VIP- -A 0�,, • ` \` — •4 40 'O :'t z ?, , . . t 0 . . . - top lop top ____p W o - TMA 7 P010a 185 �_ �— Ili `. i 0• 0 si� 1�sGp0�� it, .00 40 f. �0" .�,. \ 4.... S. Ia' O •\ \ ►;iei 'OO• aIrlii I 6 1 / \ IP 0. ----- 0 \ci. \ nPROPOSED LAND5GAP.5 PI AN 'WENT 1.111454X-SET ,1145LANDSCAPE KEY c 1 s �EVPPftear 0 DECIDUOUS TREE iil ir1; S ��� CONIFEROUS TREE 2c Bu Pt4p R HO i fz0/98 0 8`aIUB 1 Oil PRUNE 71:05ACKTRANOC" 3ANDFOLI/+< S-RETAM��•- NEVEEADERB IUee/ DOI AUEtliftEI TWISTEDo J ---•' ! : -414‘ GAUGE WRlE N RUBCER i 4106E AROUND TREE TRUNC S PIECES'' RL'rPO10ED '--• IQI.00ER F106E. r r••tilili VARIES ; _ 3-DO'S STAKES SPADEDcetj •At 120•AROIND TREE. i iii a2'SAUCER TO RECEIVEC1� _ _ A Fl1LCH OF AMIS. ! Zi -,��• >I_��� PLANT BALL CROIw OF E C , %IM.II,i!IPLANT 2'BELOW �j1„_ _,.ImFNlbtlD GI[ADE A1RER /iSET'TL E-ENT. !!i1','i'Pkilbtfil • ,�;,: DILL OF TOPSOIL _ O !Nee ALL TREES MARKED'GAVE' H 4 i` � I ee ARE TO BE SrAKED TI-U6. ::. j.�+a •Cn `��` ' DETAIL FOR STAKING TREES .-:-:.:.:-Fr. • , .: -4I ® ��NO SCALE •\ NIGH W4TER MARK � ELEv-MI5' ©AIM MINI :,C':144O O' tE MEM0 ) �� 1'h PLLYRUpBER \�� -� '` �:.� /i` V2•YYN.DIA V �•. • �[\_ + 47 C&GAIN.GIlT LORE. 2 PER TREE \ *dm''NI ter°Oii:- _, -0 i I Ati.iiirl. N RUGGER HOBE CN orrcerre NOES•45.4 r . 0� 0 r' - --(-::-.6-- \117--; ,...._/-9 E--. ;09 ��a4'WOOD 0411.NtILC14 z 1� ,1.►40 \ .., �`® ` ' -�e1/ �J � %� 4'EARTH PLANING !►. .411111r•••••1160Yr .... \ �1 2'X 4'X 24'WOOD STAKES Y ,� ?.►•\ • FEAR DURIED 4'MN y d C 1 40 • — C lam. W Z •': /J -' � � �IA GA"P'4(3 FILL 61.106011- g �► \ . = 11\�N OR lNl7I6T1JQDED .►•E. • n�ll�ll = 4tlVll* i i g 1, au- liar � ° \ 4' 1 �- -IIPII.)n*u�—'E— 01*iC'i! °'"IN.PLANTING SOIL il i n 0 • •- TYPICAL CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING . ' J NO SCALE L� / }VARIES{ I • 4'WOOD CHIP MACH ` 10 =1 COf TACTED FILL ��II6TUmED _ ' '! g co1111 — ••�� — •'MINI.PLANING SOIL P.� I 4 TYPICAL DECIDUOUS SPRUES PLANTING LEfio V." 4'(LOCO CHIP T'IULCH 112 e N PLANTING SAUCER 2'EARTH PLANTING �w�1 SAUCER 0 11 II .. � r. _ II- w IIIII,-. Lie °uReam \ -o • Ltd IL —. .II-.I- S'MPLAN •?IL— RL r3 601E (--;" TYPICAL PICONIFEROUS 5{••IRUB PLANTING J (f-/'` " '1/ I Si ...,. .,...,...I P. TIER 1W+WATERMARK • ELEV••1W I 4 ilit ''*•'''''''' ' PROPERTY , PAT A,'' _ yr 1 LINE eat '11' ,, , , , , • I4I !. , , , • \ '--i STORYsr- -- _____„...,401044, ,fivir kaittkio It' , ..... . /- .400714 , • , 000'iflrielli__ , '-'"--„S'*----).___ 1/'''4it I 1 k. ---N', TIER 2 '„...7_,_-_____::: ___deastitit .----- i_' sek \\\.\\\ qtr �--- .A•_ 1\= vp w J yr .v • . r �v , , . • av ',;. „.:.._.. `LININ = ,-,77:7---: { ' 44. ' r 4 4 - \, i'vt , lor). A TIER 3 I: . , ...s, `� � ) k \ 6 J _ Gs • • I ; \ "7 PAgi • , 133 5 ...:.. i • �- L — ANE.. `� ••• Powe '• \ C/ 185TM ` 0..\:•' . / . #,,,s, 49•‘`r hd Y.p \ / . • • . , Ir.v \, . \,. 0 .z. . .. .. .,,-- ....--,:. 1 " 1 QPROPOSED SITE PLAN UJ/ DIMENSIONS ( 1 .. rL . . g..5:: LI 0 r • � pm pi .. i iiIb 1 6ETDAOC a 9. 1-1 I LPA(6Y-6') t 1+m 1 /D o it -,. Mr tee, f \ .4 WA?ER MASK ^... -4410 �� 1 NIGH V� IMO"' p, ELEV•6115' MOMM MEN I .._....., . � ®` \ / r.- . \Or t ® ` - ° w 01 0,\ / 6a EI O • ato A mIN IN = Ii m so tom Trossen Wright Architects,PA. t� ',COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION GUARDIAN ANGELS OF ELK RIVER, INC TIER 1 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ZONING DISTRICT Section 900.12 (6), 904.14 (5) BUILDINGS BUILDING COVERAGE HARD SURFACE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS TOTAL OPEN SPACE SETBACK FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL Section 904.14 (5) (B) (iii) (b) BUILDING SETBACKS Section 900.18 PARKING Section 900.24 (12) (B) (vii) TIER 2 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ZONING DISTRICT Section 900.12 (9), 904.14 (6) BUILDINGS•3UILDING COVERAGE HARD SURFACE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS TOTAL OPEN SPACE BUILDING SETBACKS Section 900.18 PARKING REGULATIONS Section 900.24 (12) TIER 3 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ZONING DISTRICT Section 900.12 (11) BUILDINGS BUILDING COVERAGE HARD SURFACE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS TOTAL OPEN SPACE BUILDING SETBACKS Section 900.18 PARKING REGULATIONS Section 900.24 •• !1/98 Page 1 RESIDENTIAL PUD 235,605 S.F. 20 Townhomes; No Commercial Buildings (See attached floor plan) 36,000 s.f. 78,584 s.f. 114,584 s.f. 48% 121,021 s.f. 52% 50 feet(minimum setback) + 25% of minimum setback= 62.5 feet 30' (front), 10' (side), 10' (rear) Two spaces per unit COMMERCIAL PUD 171,162 S.F. 80 Units Assisted Living; No Commercial Buildings (See attached floor plan) 35,620 s.f. 49,019 s.f. 84,639 s.f. 49% 86,523 s.f. 51% 30'(front), 10' (side), 25' (rear) Parking Setbacks: 10 ft. from all property lines Senior Citizen Housing: Req'd One (1) space per unit & one (1) per employee Request variance (60 spaces shown) COMMERCIAL PUD 95,946 S.F. C-2 - Office District: Government, business and professional offices 43,000 s.f. Commercial Building 13,000 s.f. 25,331 s.f 38,331 s.f 40% 57,615 s.f. 60% 25' (front), 20' (side), 40' (rear), 40' (height) Parking Setbacks: 10 ft. from all property lines Office Building: Req'd One (1) space per 300 s.f of floor area= 133 spaces (133 spaces shown) 5 stalls must be accessible (13ft. x 20ft.) rossen Wright Architects,PA. 11/21 • OMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION ARDIAN ANGELS OF ELK RIVER, INC TIER 1 'TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ZONING DISTRICT Section 900.12 (6), 904.14 (5) 1 BUILDINGS ;BUILDING COVERAGE HARD SURFACE 'OPEN SPACE 1 SETBACK FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL Section 904.14 (5) (B) (iii) (b) !BUILDING SETBACKS Section 900.18 PARKING Section 900.24 (12)(B) (vii) TIER 2 'TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ZONING DISTRICT Section 900.12 (9), 904.14 (6) DINGS lup DING COVERAGE HARD SURFACE OPEN SPACE BUILDING SETBACKS Section 900.18 PARKING REGULATIONS Section 900.24 (12) TIER 3 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ZONING DISTRICT Section 900.12 (11) ;BUILDINGS BUILDING COVERAGE 'HARD SURFACE OPEN SPACE BUILDING SETBACKS Section 900.18 PARKING REGULATIONS Section 900.24 T y °PRE Ngrao r97 1) 5 Page 1 FOiM ///20 9 7 RESIDENTIAL PUD 235,605 S.F. 20 Townhomes; No Commercial Buildings (See attached floor plan) 36,000 s.f. 15% _ 78,584 s.f. 33% 121,021 s.f. 52% 50 feet(minimum setback)+ 25% of minimum setback=62.5 feet 30' (front), 10'(side), 10'(rear) Two spaces per unit COMMERCIAL PUD 171,162 S.F. 80 Units Assisted Living; No Commercial Buildings (See attached floor plan) 35,964 s.f. 21% 49,019 s.f 29% 86,179 s.f. 50% 30' (front), 10'(side), 25' (rear) Parking Setbacks: 10 ft. from all property lines Senior Citizen Housing: Req'd One (1) space per unit&one(1) per employee Request variance for One (1) space per two (2) units (60 spaces shown) COMMERCIAL PUD 95,946 S.F. C-2 - Office District: Government, business and professional offices 43,000 s.f. Commercial Building 21,500 s.f. 22% 16,597 s.f. 17% _ 59,349 s.f. 61% 25'(front), 20'(side), 40'(rear), 40' (height) Parking Setbacks: 10 ft. from all property lines Office Building: Req'd One(1) space per 300 s.f of floor area= 133 spaces (80 spaces shown) 5 stalls must be accessible (13ft. x 20ft.) ASSISTED LIVING FOR 0 GUARDIA!' Mir .z- 4--.1=-SP,J#4111"11p .'-. lit _ / iitit /.7/4"ilitt NI 46 4 a r .2.4k I, ,.;.,,. . 4r•tli t %iip ':, . .. to DELNERY KITCHEN ' �J DINING i illft ', CORP. ADMIN. :_CE I a. F . 1 I I I It. , SIDEWALK BEAUTY - i �` COINJTR •�'ST �`��• / fir„:• i ..... el; � �• •• o_ 0 0 o LOBBY 4 _ _ 0 0 thlri / .1. 1....... ; It.: 'NV 4. li ___ 1 'w 1 .., iiiii , -----N n;p�, 1 i qo lfrU OVA Ve0 A L., ASV. • j j/Ar> 161m• I 0 15' 3m' ORONO LAKE DEVELOPMENT ANGELS OF ELK RIVER z. Aii, ---1 I*1!! :4 ,.... yy • :. 4. _ .,,,...:3.. $6,... .. _ _ ,. :.,„. --- - ----- - — - - - ' -1 7i)-- ' . -e, vet,„,, Ai&0-,-, •••,.. FAMILY -:,.-...-t, `DINWG = = p C •�11�1' V.11;040 LOUNGE - ;iii r � • HEALTH = _ iii ,' CRAFTS __ _ RECREA ON I=___ EALTH REL ) N � I.• ". PARLOR �a% %. '%, \ MO Il C4 .fid/ ''')ta* I LY \ \ n wiiiiiii% v We! uuau nuuu %11 `/- Aggfp fetkf 41.itt 144410b IWO ...sea ��1 144111111-...40.. i J -,------(C- TROSSEN W ' 9.#T/ARCHITECTS, ST. L. MINNESOTA 66101A. PH# (612) 222-1244 4 . -q V I TOWNHOUSE FOR LAK • GUARDIAN M TWO BE l_...iii.° s • ,.:,.;,,...•.t..—......• ''..:...,-,.....:::.:-.... ..?2!.-.:.:.]:.;; ;: • • .,..„.:.,:-.. .70 1 1li �_ GUEST °;:, BEDROOM 1►::s 404. (N • . , --\ • ._, JIllii . . ri 1 \ 7 CLC [11/ [1 / • 0 (.... i t • • lit • 111 jiLAuNDRY • TRA X • 1113 • / / ADJACENT UNIT irwi • 0 4 8 .E ORONO DEVELOPMENT GELS OF ELK RIVER DROOM PLAN KI:''' - . • �� .;. IIl �T as_ BATH KITCHEN III _ III .=;'.\\\11:-...'\\ el ".',:..Z.:i.:.,,, • / : = ll....6001110'"?..'. 'rte, ` 011111.- -aIIIIIIIIII.:::r.ir! ♦+i r'.d' •'�� ., ' - • k iiiiiiet, 11101M ,...„,,...„. i.i......,.,,., . • :rµy �,pc _ LSA •.:�;.�::� • ,i.. ,, ' ..''1.'% ,,:�•, •'TZ*' ET (> V MASTER •• [BEDROOM ,: : ' • :`: • . ' • • : GROSS AREA-T79 SP 3 /� I_..is 1, ,��'_`,,,,, GARAGE - 47; \/ I 11 i M1":j�:> , • • , :? • UMT -132.. / I . • V 0 O Ii , ______ /,,,/: I., ,. i ( : - -, i. \\ i- � 0 r, 0 \6 ,, \ lYil 1 I ,, % • ‘ .i I \ .,.. !0 Q.0 0 . jjj) I .i k 0 -i ,.. / A__________ /ul n__ / °"-------------::_- do 2, i 7-4•Palloil„ .. [---As ''retta%. i-li *-31.11 1t __.„.____.. _,.....r • z 4 6 - / x ( 1111°' Q(1 1 1 "MIMI itilielipp. .,..oial:11110Mitt,, , _______ _ _.A.,,,,k,,,„ ..........„....„.....; , rilTr. '''''74. it, Ot "Of 0 10 \ ';'\ #1, i ,..., „....-' \ \‘\ ''slOrriPlie 4 A 1A. .. o 414: , r .....- ... .\ // Pt i = p'` � -�- - 1 - - - - +. \ \ ,,, _ __--- ,iiii\\... \ 9 185TH AVE IMPROVEMENTS PER CITY PLAN (230-277) VERIFY ALL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION o� 0 50 100 150 O. \ • ilom' wom SCALE IN FEET \_ T I hereby certify that this plan was REV ORONO LAKE PROPERTY Joky Oliver $ Associates, /narepared by me or under my direct DATE: 9/8/9@ ND DATE DESCRIPTION F,,, aw •wv,sown sw..evbw.Land P+ a supervision and that I am a duly BK/PG: ELK RIVER, MN 680 Do a Avenue Licensed Land Surveyor under the (srz}441—z07z (FAX)44 laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY: PC 41- GUARDIAN ANGELS a� 72nesota CHECKED BY: Lc a1- 201 W. Travelers 7raii, Suite 200 OWI GA-MSA ..___‘\ SI TE CONDI TI ONS Burnsville, MN 55997 Signed: TEXT: (612)881-9013 (FnY)881-9018 Date: 8/8/96 LIe.Na. 13057 FILE NO.: • • • I 70 I Q/ I / ` • • / . 100 1'f0 gybed MfM X117 11 [W...t0 • II / / I ....'-0 .I / / 1 /C ' I. Il I w,n, I ` ORONO / 1 I ..„......-7-_-7----7,_ / li M 1' d � --. � _ = www llldl I MCI { ,1Vo —a�'�+- ��� ✓' , - Tom!„ - _�__, kr I t 1 I \ M 514, * ''":". 7 4- Atzflp LF T •�.N / k! WWI I ,�" - l� �, w..1__ _moi .��� �� ,y �i y err ) I- li len- 11Sl°- ii i) i I I \M- \ 1 1 • _ - _ _ _ 1111:_.,„,.: 'al, re,.. 1h" -. I _ r ii 'xe:� 16 tt : )ji 1 I . ' :...21.1rmia:;_ _ , --.4.4 . - - - _ 40. lik___._,.,,,, _ __ L II1r I v- .-_ He - - _ _ 'I• / ` `� • f '- --_ �•-f. ,—r T• "-1 •• 1 jl.�' I ♦ 1 fI� ' 4.,,,,,,„,,, HN _ M► t7j�' - r t (\\ N r )1 :` 1 s'.\al ii, �1 I 1 _�'t�.r�� h•.. +�•� ' s..', air ..,...--• ` \ 'i •&'...41 itir 1,,,,I • - • �►"r • " /1 1 ,.....11- I 1 1 I1 \ yy/asll'� ,<5...„ rf.,-!r, us s K` / N,r 4. I CI 1 ' c tH \' ' I 7 \\ ' hiiI ~.I.t,rx- /gyp nrNM0 Q H'' J\s \ — _---• - —. b7a fr° 1:11 O d / ,>Ka; �•4 lUttlitQF j e �T Au t1r Iwo Ave. I \ . c I\ � - - Y M s/ I__. \ \�j 1 ''. 1 C ♦ 1 �( CCfT1� qL' �••M ` \ ,N.( f OA 1 �` �' ....--,•'''' I 't' s .\ \ ° s\k, ‘A .1bc.to --.; \ \\ -, „ - - .--- `\ \A , .... - /4A� I \ 4 I O ). - \ 5 � P' O :11_o 5g l . gb. e2 s5K :1i - - \ , .-il‘fis . -,'";:' ,r-I I. 11' SCALE I" - 50' 5 - 'eee.1 I I. II a � C x I I • w �w MU U g w , i . , :i, I I Jli - h Oytp�,� •l - --- I, lI� W -cg g GRAPHIC SCALE u Il ' A • ;I Ill, , 11 I OA ;IP I Ii, IS •�``� `,1' IIIA, LEGEND d 0 8 g, I III,' •`� `� , ,1 1 BSC- EXISTING CONTOURS JM•I J.fOA ,1 ,,, 552 NEW CONTOURS k ,(\,\',1 96•-y, EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS (— Z s S \ I`e SOS NEW SPOT ELEVATIONS r U ,nZ aI • , V 011011 ,i k';. '�`‘ :—n oex,�.yrol�.t sewe /rte w nri ,,,,,b,\ , , \\ - Hew �u�( -i (ca Q z ` 0 z Ai A',,\ , _: NOTES Qce wHg \ • W s _ _ x S2 0444..i 10411. 0.16 A.C..r•'( Awe yt. e.• -- 0.,,,,,,,,,,,..,, I.�i3 AG. dip "%' ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE LUIA it: s••-J/.' I Hard wrloca do r, _ ..iliViPptee: -1C;5'. . e.+• •••, "' - , public rood V /' r } I .H.Y %/ ,tITH}ti.3Y�i j�: � ei:: 50'minimum W § • "Z .. le . •S eTo,ek:••t.b.. > z .% • ' i ,1I II 6" minimum '.'.c•.!4•����•ij�r•��.Z'•:I5 J Y '' Z:1•41110:040.1r .1.0.1.. W .e✓ I"-rwaeDed rock ;1Tei-ektlr.•ia31." 0^ 0 '/'' 4nDot Type V 1 • Ceole.tde Separator i j V (TO BE PLACED AS DIRECTED as THE ENGINEER)• • I—• ♦ • ' ,' STORM SEWER INLET STRUCTURE W Wo 5 �—.4.,...or nor �}n I I ��. ANCHOR WITH 2 STAKES > o- Oli-7 1 I PER BALE DRIVEN INTO W ./ , S io NOW 01.1 CYNIC vr.nm 43 I----' �Q THE CROWD. LLLLLL �.,= .om 0 • Ai a Lys .. ..as..•o.c s s w,..0 1 =./—D.... •avu./rurm ass ala / . ,ll q/Ri/A r '/R'/Z' HAY OR 51RAW BALES Cl O - Ens,w oAamo $:7"..--'•MI. ir••w TEMPORARY BARRIER OF BALES TO PREVENT SEDIMENT r wwAw S • ....r .•+ wown r FROM ENTERING THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM. UI'IA Z 0 ce SILT FENCE • CATCH BASIN PROTECTION 0 0 ff,„17 J _ ] , , .r N r«•Flood N.M • , ono • � tr.• / \ ORONO LAKE 4 7 ....1 . 0 i 0 Nuc ,jj,„j 47 ill tt V 11011 ---<.: iihearaillft, - a \ I I Aeae,eo uvr+o \ \ H I ____ `I,� F 11, ,o-s, I I J� `'i 41 rAr,,.. . J r (1 -r O G pvIP I I.r 165714 AVE' 1 allgit* � d .s.,..7'`�\T.ro,.l.-E b\ W % ; COMMERCIAL dIILDNi 0 1 . �a . \:. A, i Q11 ____ _- „, ./ . e • • • 6Q I g"11 911 ?,IR W 2111 .„- I ' SCALE I• -50' o 5 L_u_i.il. 1 t E pg 6 GRAF•HIC SCALE u -a S to. I LEGEND p a la O 0 '6 0 EXI6TI G DANITART SEWER W?1ANHOLE • /•5 .... NEW 6ANRART SELLER WMANI4OLE -/W ® .EXISTING WATER LINE WNALVE •\ `� ��r'W IyI �1 NEW WATER LINE UY HYDRANT 4 VALVE Z Ei a N Q j } \� —DV 0 IXIOTPG OTORI'1 1211.ER IUCDN1101 Z ��IaA� �J �� S C' W NEW STOR1'1 SELLER LL/CD D W ;e D� .15•D�� NEW FLARED END SECTION O ` 111111\''' __ ..„ p .4 ! ZetLll � ;, \ CeZg4 \ c Q Ufa `. w in J / �� W V ' ,/ z 0 Z/ Ne � QW / 0 6 g ce / Q 1111 , U W Cl— `c 0 zz J aciA i F W O z O cze0 411 0 • : \SDSK\PRIA( \GA-PREL.dwg Tue Nov 25 10: 17: 14 1997 PAT • ` N \ VIaN{TT.Y MAP fSo •• :tlotik:c.7:1101111i `•..•.Lake. .4,1, rte. x-100 Vear Flood PICin p. •( %,s, a. 877.0 0 50 100 150 '' ,\ to 4 �•. •••• . aim SCALE IN FEET • _� -. ' �- NOW- 871.5 1I i. '�/�'�-. _ 'Nater Elev. 871.6 Nov. 1987 -�.` I�_�17) .TJ l.. s 'I' 8000 INFORMATION PER FIRM BY FEMA. ifir-ii .v �LtiQ O / COMMISSION PANEL N0. 270436 00150. Box flood Elev 877 ft. DATE 2/19/92 _ i Q. Judlciol Landmark(JUA) (Zone AE) set pursuant to Torrens •I `\ •-"-..,... ..., ....._.._- ----4'''.7-----0. •' ,' 1 `` _ N I ;�, Fee/C2-88-1087 4\ \ jistirt 3.42 At i I /1 ,,. _ lszc11011r41 I f. ,, ,411",/ ig.5 SZ \'`. ,Y1 , ir-f- V 4111 yo la rAlit,\ Ili la 1111:0)"\\ ,I 03.07 a. \ } \ 010 4\ (.07..00 °.57.09'23• j.•�. �\ ` \\ in �-DRAINAGE&UTILITY. ` • EASEMENT \ i� v// \ T 6 � 200'TIER LINE \\ \ N !. Ir g \\ \ ‘'- e E" II BLOCK 1 �\`•� \ I D.M.SMITH h C., .o \ / J.D.ENRIGHT CI x... 3.17 At. '' �. \ ' ELY MOTEL \ ,44* 7/14.V0e,.....„, ..," , b - I , �••,• lm I� 1,..., \ \. / \ � / �// ,\ "\\ tin ` ,j90 _—�-IN7i P \ tea• r I ^ `\ s ��- 400'TIER LINE \ ,^\M10 \\ '\ss .'\r'' •• ti\ , 1 /rl I L20.91-� .=, \ !' iiiini (-u.pa_t.. $TS � \ \ / `'\ \ 'a��� I •i7 a '•3'57• \ ,, / �• ), DR.INAAEGEkULITY ' ------ee•. ///ra \\ //NT � / k1\ .F)vM`y�56g ----1 eF-Cr' RE 672lailliii"---- CY SA1.1466.1..0.444,J2 \ // /''+, CrT �e�f / IC E72UAr ' �( 4 •\• / o iI 1111 -/-----'14*--'- \\ \\ E X + 'A 0 • 1� e\r tip_ i it ,._, ,.,, ,------ I !`,._ \\ H e TYPICAL TWIN HOME 36 36 Ab ‘ • / / 20 20 .............. �I /J`/yf / �� N.25 4 L ...„...._ ,..... ,i / �• 0 1 B 19 ,iy "' "' "CENEI(" 2664,1 2664.! ^ 1 RP - 1..r..,4,1 \ ISI g I • I 8.75 8.75 0 ,, c,, Lo . 0 5'..90. 17.25 w„) ''''',. 0.:4' �� / \_ 36 — 36 NT.S. J�N G.A.F's E PARCEL NE OF NE'LY W"JOPLIN INTERCHANGE"AS PLATTED IN 'FOX HAVEN `1t ` a COMMERCIAL",AND TO BE KNOWN AS"ORONO SHORES": es. o South line of the NW I/4,Section 32,Township 33,Ronge 26 /' All that port of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32.Township 33, Range 26. 1t !'• ' en // Sherburne County,Minnesota lying northerly of the Northerly line or the .fit J '� iright-of-way key ro U.S.Highway No.ly lensoutherly d e the L #1; ndon line of Lake Orono; tying ing of the following deserted Line pl; and L_ J/ �_ __ ___ __ lying westerly of the foSOsSng described Liner#2. Sold Line it being described as Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 46 Sherburne County Monument seconds East along the South line of sold Southwest Quarter for Double spire in north face ./ \ \,, 681.14 feet; thence North I degree 48 minutes 00 second.West for power pole 150'+/-east 90.63 feet,more or less,to Intersect said Northerly line of the of Quarter Comer �' highway right-of-way,sold point of intersection also being the Bench Mark Elev. 888.98 ' '- actual Point Of Beginning of said Line Ito be hereby described; tJ^� thence continue North I degree 48 minutes 00 seconds West along I \ \" sold rsuant to Torid orra s File 1Nbeing o.C2-marked-187).Edd Landmarks set y4 feet to intersect with send terminate sold Line per eat.ordat5wnenr ••• ••••••,, •• \ shore erne of lake Orono. Said Line/2 berg casaba as Commencing at the point of interaction of the East line of aid Northwest Quarter with the '„ ,,`.,__.,.. '„,_,`. , •-• '' \ centerline of said U.S. Highway No.10; thence southwesterly along Angels&DEVELOPERS: Guardian gels Foundation \ said centerline,bang o curve concave to the south,radia 'ws 2291.87 400 Evans Ave. UTILITY EASEMENT At INTERSECTION OF HWY. IO AND JOPLIN FOR GUARDIAN ANGELS: E16 River MN,55330 feet,for a centralminutes angle of 2 degrees 08 mutes 34 seconds and length 85.71 feet dance South South 58 degrees 58 mutes 00 seconds Elk R 441-1216 M easement for utility purposes over,across,and under that pmt of the West,tangent to said arm.and along said centerline for 986.99 west Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32,Township 33,Range 26, feet to a point thereon a distance of+072.7 fest southwesterly of Sherburne County,Minnesota described as Beginning at the point of \ \ said point of commencement; thence North 31 degrees 02 minutes 00 ZONING: R-26 intersection of the North line of the right-of-way of V.S.Highway No.10 seconds West at right angles to said centerline for 112.5 feet to PROPOSED P.U.D. with the Easterly line of the right-of-woy of Joplin Street as lad out on intersect sold Northerly line of the highway right-of-way,said the duly recorded plat of FOX HAVEN COMMERCIAL,said Counts thence North point of interaction also being the actual Point Of Beginning of 25 degrees 39 minutes 20 seconds West,assumed basin of bearings,along sold Line/2 to be hereby described; thence continue North 31 Arra 11.7 Arrmore or less. said Easterly fine of Joplin Street for a distance of 46.80 feet; thence degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds West along sold Line#2 for 113 feel. along a tangential curve concave to the southwest with a radius of 352.00 more or less.to intersect with and terminate at Bald Southerly feet for o central angle of 0 degrees 27 minutes 32 seconds and length shore line of Lake Orono. Denotes droinage&utility easements 2.82 feet; thence North 64 degrees 20 minutes 40 seconds East,not tangent to said curve,for a distance of 30.01 feet; thence South 25 degrees 39 For the purposes of the above descriptions the West line of the Southwest -- -- —Danol,bustling setback foes: maul,20 seconds East for a distance of 50.00 feet to intersect said Quarter of sold Section 32 is assumed to bear South 0 degrees 48 minutes 31 40'Fronloged Road North lie.of the highway right-of-way, thence southwesterly along sale seconds East. 25'West Property Line highway right-of-way,being a non-tongential curve concave to the 62.50'Lake Front northwest with a radius of 2179.33 fat for o central angle of 0 degrees EXCEPTING THEREFROM oil that part thereof platted os FOX HAVEN 60'115 Highway 10 47 minutes 20 seconds and length 30.00 fat,more or leas, to the Point Of COMMERCIAL,said County. Beginning. "— —Denotes parking setback lines: Containing 0.03 acre,more or Ia.. Containing 11,7 acres,more or less. Subject to easements of record.If any. 10'US Highway 10 GAF: /GAH21 4/22/97 F6e; 6506.2 GAF: /GAFLake.6a 5/22/97 Fie: 6506.10-00 \ cT' I hereby cattily that this plan was DATE: 11/25/97 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Y ^ John Oliver & Associates, Inc. prapored by me or under my direst ORONO SHORES CUR drywuMne,carom Snes.ytnp.Dens Panning supervision and that I am a duly BK/PC: 161/3 ��--� ELK RIVER, MN Licensed Land Surveyor under the t 880 Dodge Avenueo DRAWN BY: PG pIowa of the State o Minnesota. CK `�,�' FOR Elk River, Minnesota CHECKED BY: LC ' \ `� GUARDIAN ANGELS 201 W. Trove/ere e Prail. S5895 uite POf A. 7Yaveters i`ra:E Suite P00 DWG: GA-PREL — PRELIMINARY PLAT Durnwvitle. MN 08337 signed: TEXT: (8/2)884-3046 (FAX)884-304f1 Dale: 11/25/97 Reg.No. 13057 FILE NO.: 5506,10-03 - 1. ORONO LAKE DEV ▪ N GUARDIAN ANGELS OF • 1 , // \ • , .,. . , , _ _ 1-100 Year Flood Plain 11)( ( / Elev.877.0 � 1 N'f • NIGH WATER MARK ;N• ELEV • 8119' L ` ORONO LIPR�OPERTT 1 1 �i ��Iil ,_.••••,... t,,1_ Th. I lityie I - *.t,4 46. (81\ ''''' 1ALf7TOWNHOMESa0, �� �� � 1 STORY — a111111.11111111 r 1111 (ILI 3 00' -'re 61 1,` I 1 I `fir H •• 4 I PNAS!T1M0 I I ' i ASSISTED LIVING ', • !STORY IPHA$E ONO I 1 �' . K 6 v • Y gSTN AVE. 7 ...%A.,•'',.........:,...N, e N COMMERCIAL N.; - ` BUILDING __ _ -4< \ NOT TO EXCEED 40' \°°3°12°'''°1'---.1----'''M - •----- t 1 # 4111r di 1 I \ , , \..\ J, Y 1 R9lR@10E NORTH 1 1 ® -,O��SEp SITE PLAN W/ DIMENSIONS � r , LOPMENT I'lli .... ELK RIVER I NI Ng Ira • / I kill i III _ _ PARKI r" o .... ,.,..:. KE . ._...00•,..72 •. .,- • .• . • -:-.....! • ,,e, ,___ ,,,..0 C i • , . . 161 1 '1-. ,,,,,-''' , 'e. 1 , , • / C 1 "l...c.,-'''' / • 1 1 I ....--- C COMMERCIAL.. ' • I' BUILDING • , v.- • . • NOT TO EXCEED 40' \ ii . • • ‘./ . • . 1 I 1 1 i I I 1 I I 2.411r, \ ,„ . i• • *, 000.• • . M 1 " qgC\ '''' \• ',_. • •D 1 ---., \ . • • '....664, 15W.TE COMMERCIAL BUILDING \ e,4i \ ` ,, \ . \\_-. 4. ..,„ -1k4 WATER TIARK. I& \ wtisel..txj-\ ELEv • a 15 IAIMMI \ $iit •CV ,.'. INNIMI I \' • 0 ., ,, ''.• • * N 4' fl',/ - P.* p alf• . . „ ;,.4. Z Z'.:= 'N it ..-- i .4... t 1 E V . ...,- 1 i 9 ...- s ' :P.A.:k._ . ....., • PRPPERTY . '' ' • • ,,,,,-'-'- ..-- - -,-., - . • ,,--- - ,---' ....... ,,,-- e - - _ •-• ,,, ,.,.,,-„, , ,- . • ,,,,,, . -___, • ,-- ______.. • ...----"-------- „,-- .--- . . ...... „7,---"---- --7-0 :0 100 --- [-.723 1 ORONO LAKE DEVI •'\` GUARDIAN ANGELS OF E • �' k•1," I,( 00.v.Y8oar Flood Plain �'�, �' �',��+�� 77.0 NJ-,, � !^1p ��'d�. Is. t ORONO T. �. � tett �.':;.� -• j rr `� �,.� .>— •._.•_� `fir y r li 'ir. � �Ra `�„,,,_ ' k . v,. .,, I I i 1 I ' — ` \ \ �\, I" '�aVII 1 1 .. I/—) , Ili: , i art ili11 iI• IL..,‘ ) 0y ,, TJER\2 ., • I � Co 6 f PON)A �� 1 _ \--,,,„,/ +_ • > 3 IER _------ — -- —_' � S NU Bim_.__ , TH AVE• � � , .` � `� � ,��.� li t,vil rte: 185 ��\�� � � l4il . .\` =gip.a.s>..6 --i a.._ _ \\\\, \ a.: ",, rix .5, ,� - \ kz '` ' i \\ \ -,, 1 \ \ \\\ /• 1110 PETERING!PORNN \ \\\\ r I ..:I/75 D SITE PLAN 111/ TIERS I. e li tLOPMENT 4.!! LK RIVER Ag TIER 1 Pp A. 235,605 S.F. 0 B. RESIDENTIAL PUD C. PROPOSED 20 TOWNHOMES i II TIER 2 / -x47 'II A. 171,162 S.F. 'E r B. COMMERCIAL PUD w i ,,,' r-. t I C. PROPOSED 80 UNITS ASSISTED LIVING ' 1 i r' y-, ' I I TIER 3 A. 95,946 S.F. i i ; I B. COMMERCIAL PUD j c i C. PROPOSED 43,000 S.F. COMMERCIAL BUILDING 9 \ '.tit Iii I 11 ts 4, \ --;—____________ ,-.:42k, \\ ', \ , ..7-',;,-, \o , ,, g i 1. r C1� -,,,,- 0 S g i __ _,, Q, `\ i , - ' _____-=,-/ i' Ps A 0 W h ; '1. O NI ‘,. ....„,. \'''(') , , „,.....-- , : , ..., .........- • :------ ----- , I c,„ i .. % rte' „..\., ..\\)\))- , .....\, ,,", . . r ,,,,,,---'''''' ,,,,i, . i t . ..--""-- c') „7"-/. i i 0 50 100