12-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M5-3131 JMly 13,2005 PigeS - 50' setback on collector or arterial streets (Willow Dr. requires 50', plat drawing shows only 30’ for Lots 1,2 and 11, and should be revised; 50’ will not be a problem for Lot 2, but will have some impact on Lot 11; existing Williamson house at 40 ’ will remain nonconforming..,) -10' side yard on interior lot lines (all lots conform), 15' side yard at exterior of RPUD (east line of lot 6 proposed at 10 ’, should revise to 15’; if church lot ends up not being rezoned RPUD, then north yard of Lot 4 should be to increased to 15’...) • side yards abutting street must meet front setback requirement (all lots meet this) - 30* max building height (based on proposed grading plan — no need for variances) H. Lot Coverage vs. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Section 78-1403, the 15% Lot Coverage limit, states that the 15% limit applies to all zoning districts; it doesn t make an exception for RPUD, However, the RPUD District does not specifically establish a Lot Coverage by Structures’ lumt. Instead, the RPUD standards limit individual lots to 50% hardcover and an individual lot Floor Area Ratio (FAR = gross area of all floors divided by gross lot area) of 0.5. This means a 14,000 s.f, lot is allowed 7,000 s.f. of floor space. A 2-story 30’ x 70 ’ walkout with a basement, two stories, and an attached 3-stall, 1-level 24’ x 30’ garage would yield 7020 s.f. of floor area, as an example. The 9 proposed homes range from as low as 10% lot coverage to as much as 25% lot coverage. These were calculated based on using the gross lot area including wetlands and ponding, limiting the 14,000 -15,000 s.f. lots to 15% will result in homes with footprints in the 2100-2250 s.f range, vdiereas these lots are shown with homes of3300-3600 s.f footprints. Planning Commission should discuss and make a recommendation as to whether both the 15% limit and the FAR should apply to this development, or fust the FAR. L Road Layout and Standards T^e proposed road layout meets the corridor standards of a 50' road right-of-way and 100' cul-de-sac diameter, and the radius appears to meet the 275' standard for a 30 mph road. The access location onto Willow Drive is directly across Elm Lane, which is appropriate. The City would normally require that all lots in a subdivision be served with driveways from the new local road rather than fix>m the arterial (Willow is defined in the CMP as a "B Minor Arterial"). The only lots proposed to access other than from the proposed new road are the existing church and the Williamson property. It would not be appropriate to require the church to access onto this new residential street, and the Williamson home is oriented such that re-directing its access off of Willow would be unreasonable and serve ix) real purpose. J. Road Improvcmeati and/or Easements Needed The road to be crated can be public or private iMsed on the CMP guidelines, as it will be of an urban nature but likely in a 'planned' developmenf There is no apparent need for additional right-of-way for Willow Drive. The pro's and con's of public versus private road should be discussed with the api^cant. Because this will be an urban development, the City will ultimately own and maintain the sanitary sewer lines (and City water mains, if provided).