5.1. - 5.5. SR 02-009-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 4140 THiELMAN LN.,//203, ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 r~HONE NO.(320) 255-2976 FILE NO. October 22, 1997 Carol Mills Executive Director Guardian Angels of Elk River 280 Evans Av. 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 }Oo confirm the meeting date, time and place after speaking with the city staff. I also wanted to thank you r 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 loo 'king at the sen'ice 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 to~mhomes 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 to~mhomes 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 ft: units be transferred and then convened to twelve 400 ft2 units of AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER