06-28-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#04-3016 June 24,2004 Page 2 Further Analysis of Application Preservation Outlot. The applicant’s newly submitted drawings do not yet reflect the creation of an Outlot for the areas to be preserved as open space. This would be a condition of preliminary plat approval. The result will be lots varying in area from about 30,000 sf (Lx>ts 3 and 6) to as much as 70,000-plus sf (Lot 7). The outlot will be approximately 1 2 acres, of which 6 acres is wetland and creek, and 6 acres is dry land. Further discussion should occur about what type of restrictions you may want to incorporate into the Open Space Easement. Hardcover. Lots 2 and 3 are near enough to the bank of the creek to be subject to the 2S% hardcover limitation of the 75-250' zone (Note that non-wetland areas more than 300' from the creek are not in the defined Shoreland District and not subject to hjirdcover regulations). Staffhas reviewed the hardcover ordinance impacts on Lots 2 and 3 (Exhibit D) and the conclusion is tliat while each lot is somewhat limited, each has ui excess of5500 sf. ofhardcover allotment which will accommodate new homes with drivcv^ays, decks, etc. The ability to add accessory structures to these hvo lots will be somewhat limited, however. Items for further discussion: PRD Layout & Development. Staff sees development of this site as a PRD, as a win-win situation for the City and the developer. Compared with the variety of possible standard plat layout options wc reviewed for this property during the sketch plan review, a standard plat would likely result in homes and driveways on the dry buildablc land to the northeast abutting the Long Lake city boundary, as well as on the area south of tlie creek abutting the 1 .uce Line trail. A standard plat would result in more roadway and driveway hardcover. Wc have done many PRD’s in the rural residential zone, although most of them have been only ‘quasi-clustered’ and never really resulted in substantial preservation of open space. The best good example is Luce Line Ridge, the old Ski-Tonka site on Bayside Road, where 2.5 acre - 3 acre lots were clustered in the 5-acre zone, allowing the steep slope areas to be preserv'ed and not developed. From staffs perspective, the visual impacts from the Luce Line and from surrounding properties will be minimal with the proposed development. The property has 14 dry buildablc acres, and w ithout PRD devel' pment, it is possible they would have still ended up with at least 6 scattered lots, and one of them would have been south of the creek next to the Luce Line. Visual Density. Staff would support holding the dc\clopcr to greater side setback requirements ifbuilding separation is an issue. The’r new plan shows Iiow homes can be constructed 60 feet apart, so a 30' side setb<ick with the same sizc^'shape lots they are proposing, w ould not be unreasonably restrictive. The only problem site would be the existing home, w hich is 15' from its proposed north lot line and 50' from the next proposed liouse. In all 7 lots, it would be reasonable to require any new constmetion to meet a 30’ setback. In terms ofhow visible this development will be from off-site, there may be some long views from the cast (from the Rydell property and/or the Luce Line looking westward, and probably some views from the ncighboihoods to the north. From the direct south and west, existing vegetative screening is substantial. 1 lowever, wc should not be afraid to require substantial tree plantings at the walkout sides of the homes if screening is on issue.