Laserfiche WebLink
#2340 - Robert & Iris Waade <br />April 17, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br />March 16 Meeting Recap <br />At the March 16 Planning Commission meeting, the following occurred: <br />A neighborhood group submitted a petition opposing the duplex use (Exhibit D) <br />Planning Commission noted that the lot coverage for the duplex lot is at 22% but <br />cannot exceed 15%. Applicant noted he could reduce it to meet 15%. <br />Planning Commission agreed to the concept of allowing the storm pond to be credited <br />toward the extra 50% acreage requirement for the back lot <br />Planning Commission agreed that the proposal meets the intent of the hardcover <br />ordinance with no variance needed <br />Planning Commission expressed support for the site variances necessary to develop <br />two single family homes, but not necessarily those for a single plus a duplex <br />New issues identified for applicant to address include proximity of road to <br />neighboring homes; impacts on neighborhood drainage; and lack of time for review <br />by City Engineer. <br />Applicant requested tabling rather than a recommendation of denial. <br />Analysis of PRD Option - Benefits, Issues <br />The option of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) w as briefly discussed at the sketch plan <br />stage but applicant chose to go the standard plat route. However, the need for variances and the <br />neighborhood opposition to a rental situation have resulted in new discussions about doing this as <br />a PRD. Developing the site as a PRD subjects it to restrictive Shoreland requirements, but may also <br />result in some benefits. <br />Possible Benefits of PRD <br />Zoning performance standards are 'thrown out’ in favor of a negotiation process; i.e. things <br />that don't meet code are not considered as variances, but City has total ability to accept or <br />reject all facets of the development, including aesthetic issues. <br />Some flexibility in unit placement.