12-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE OEONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) 3. A 125-foot minimum lot depth. All lots but Lots 2,4, and S meet this when measured from the new road to the midpoint of the opposite lot line. 4. A 40-foot rear yard or 20 percent of lot depth, whichever is less. Lots 2 and 6 do not meet this ) standard but will not be affected if it is required. 5.A 25-foot front setback on internal streets. 6.A SO-foot setback on collector or arterial streets. The existing Williamson house at 40 feet will remain nonconforming. 7. 8. A 10-foot side yard on interior lot lines, IS-foot side yard at exterior of RPUD. Side yards abutting street must meet front setback requirement. Gaffron noted all lots do meet this requirement. 9. A 30-foot maximum building height. Gaffron stated the IS percent limit applies to all zoning districts and does not make an exception for a RPUD. However, die RPUD District does not specifically establish a "Lot Coverage by Structures” limit. Instead, the RPUD standards limit individual lots to SO percent hardcover and an individual lot Floor Area Ratio. The nine proposed homes range from as low as 10 percent lot coverage to as much as 25 percent lot coverage. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should make a recommendation as to whether both the IS percent limit and the Floor Area Ratio should apply to this development or just the Floor Area Ratio. Gaffron stated the proposed road layout meets the corridor standards of a SO-foot right-of-way and 100-foot cul-de-sac diameter and the radius appears to meet the 27S’ standard for a 30 mile per hour road. The access location onto Willow Drive is directly across Elm Lane. 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 redirecting its access off of Willow Drive would be unreasonable and serve no real purpose. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission consider the following items: 1.Determine whether the RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this developnKnt. The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss whether rezoning proposed Lot 3 to RPUD is appropriate or whether it ^ould remain as a conditional use in the RR-IB zone. 2.The applicant must provide a suitable plans and elevation views showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservabon Design goals. PAGE 20 I li I Util