4.0. BASR 01-27-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y�P,��pF MIN,v4:9 9 ��►► Minnesota Department of Natural Resources \iUt rcg DNR WATERS I i �� 0 4140 THIELMAN LN., #203, ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 L_-_=- 0 Fti,. P�h Phone No. (320) 255-2976 TT °F NaTUO\- 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 0 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:612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer IS, Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity '1E4 Minimum of 10'4 Post-Consumer Waste