Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Case File: CU 07-17 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Well House Twin Lakes Estates <br />Elk River Municipal Utilities <br /> <br />options for building design. In reviewing potential buildings designs, its cohesiveness with the adjacent <br />dwelling units, its visual impact from the adjacent dwellings, its long term weathering characteristics <br />should all be considered. Of the three options presented by the applicant, Staff would support option 1, <br />with a couple minor modifications: <br /> <br />Lower the roof line as much as possible. The applicant had indicated that the interior needs 8 foot <br />ceilings. Lowering the roof two feet (from 10) reduces the visual impact of the blank wall. <br /> <br />Increase the roof pitch to one more consistent with the adjacent structures, likely 8/12. This will <br />introduce a residential character to the buildings, being in the immediate rear yards of the adjacent <br />homes. <br /> <br />Introduce 'windows' on the walls facing the residential units. These need not be made of glass, but <br />framing and alternative wood patterns would reinforce the residential character of the improvements. <br /> <br />Natural Resources <br />Trees - The proposal has a fairly significant impact on the tree line, moving it south away from the <br />residential dwellings on the Smith 8-20 feet. There is no ordinance in place that requires the protection <br />of trees, staff has encouraged the applicant to develop a plan that minimizes this impact. <br /> <br />Wetlands - There are three wetlands in the immediate area. Their location and setback defines a limited <br />area of potential sites for the well and well house structure. Additional wetland concerns are addressed <br />in the attached City Engineer's memo dated June 27, 2007. <br /> <br />Utilities <br />The attached City Engineers memo dated June 27, 2007 addresses the utilities, and their impact on the <br />streets and wetlands. <br /> <br />Planninl Commission Discussion <br />No person approached the Planning Commission during the public hearing with support or opposition <br />to the request. To date, staff has not received any comments. Staff verified public notice was published <br />and postcards mailed out. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission discussed the building materials, but concurred that since the building cannot <br />be completely screened, the "hiding in plain sight" approach was better. <br /> <br />At the meeting, Staff recommendation was to use a fake window treatment to break up the monotony <br />of the walls facing the adjacent residences. Upon closer review, staff is recommending to the City <br />Council that foundation plants would be more effective. Staffs recommendation is that a landscaping <br />plan be approved by staff prior to construction. <br />