02-13-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#OS-3131 Febu�ryl0,2006 Page 2 Update Since the January 23 meeting applicant has: - worked with staff to defii�e the limitations that would be imposed by a 0.4 FAR vs. a 0.5 FAR; -provided additional materials for review and consideration as noted aUove; -met with individual Council members to view the site. Staff would offer the following comments on various topics: Wetlands. TY18 Ci01111I11111L1S fill in Lot 8 has been reduced froin 2000 s.f. to 1700 s.f.; the proposed homes on Lots 7 and 8 will still meet the 25' buffer plus 20' buffer setback requirement. Lot 10 and the proposed public road entrance to Willow Drive include an area of ditch wetland along Willow Drive. The MCWD has classified this ditch wetland as "incidental"; however, 300 s.f. of wetland fill will be required for roadway construction, using up the remainder of the 2000 sf deminimus fill allowed by WCA regulations. The required 25' buffer and 20' required setback froin the buffer for structures on Lot 10 would require a structure setback approximately 80' from the west line of Lot 10, leaving a buildable envelope of approxiinately 60' in width. Applicant has requested that the 20' buffer setback be reduced to 10' for this lot. Potential alternatives to relaxation of the setback would include reduction of the buffer width (requires MCWD acceptance); fill wetland and mitigate elsewhere on site; re-apportionment of Lot 8 deminimus filling to Lot 10; or shifting of lot lines eastward for Lots 5-9-10. Based on the recommendation of the City's wetland consultant, it would not be inappropriate for the City to allow a reduction of the wetland buffer setback to 10' along the west side of Lot 10. The deminimus fill and buffer setback relaxation are allowed under Zoning Code Section 78-1608 in conjlulction with an approved buffer management plan. The draft resolution approves the 10' setback. Floor Area Ratio The applicant's letter dated January 24 incorporates a table created by staff that indicates the square footages of floor area possible under FARs of 0.5, 0.4 and 0.3. A 0.4 FAR would allow reasonably sized homes on all of the lots. Applicant has indicated the 0.4 FAR should be acceptable. His most recent discussions with staff have been concerned with the definition of whether front open porches, decks and 3-season or screen porches are included in FAR. The variety of definitions I've fotmd from different sources don't generally go into this much detail. My conclusion is that an open deck does not count, a space enclosed by permanent walls and roof sllould count, regardless of whether it is heated, and that screen porches are open to discussion... note that accessory buildings also count against the FAR... Landscaping Plans, Conservation Design Applicant has shown Council a conceptual landscaping plan that was created with the assistance of AES. Staff does not currently have on file a copy of those plans, which applicant should provide...