03-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 3 at the road. While this plan technically meets code standards, it creates the need for an additional driveway access serving Lot 3 directly onto the County Road. The subdivision code indicates that development of new single family residences on major roads should be served by interior road systems and direct driveway access to the major roads should be limited. Also, under this layout Lot 3 is just 0.50 acre and therefore maybe somewhat more limited in development flexibility than Proposals A or C. Proposal C: Cul-de-sac Serving All 3 Lots Proposal C results in 3 lots that meet all City requirements and which are served by a short cul-de- sac. While this plan would appear to be the most conforming of the three proposals, applicant notes that creation of a cul-de-sac adds a significant amount of hardcover as compared to Proposals A or B. In Plan C, Lot 2 is the most limited in acreage and hardcover potential, but still would be allowed as much as 3,570 s.f. of hardcover. See Exhibit F-2. For example, the existing house (e.xcluding the detached garage) has a footprint of approximately 2,250 s.f A similar house could be built on proposed Lot 2, and adding a 200 s.f deck and 100 s.f for sidewalks, could have appro umately a 1,000 s.f driveway. At a nominal 16' width, the driveway could be approximately 62' in length. The result is that the house would have to be set back approximately 100-110’ from the lake in order to minimize driveway length to meet the hardcover standards. Lot 3 at 0.60 acre is slightly less limiting, however. Lot 1, even w'ith 0.68 acre, would probably use up the extra hardcover allow'ance in additional driveway length. Each of the three lot proposals results in lots that are somewhat limited by the 25% hardcover allowance for the 75-250 zone. By contrast, a 2 lot subdivision w'ith each lot being appro.ximately 1 acre, could result in much greater flexibility for new' home construction with relatively greater ability to meet the hardcover standards. Cul-de-sac Pros and Cons Note that the cul-de-sac as shown in Concept Plan C would be only 150 ’ in total length, being the shortest cul-de-sac road developed to-date in the City. We have many other cul-de-sac roads seiz ing just three homes, but virtually all others are much greater in length' Because this is an urban density zone, the Comprehensive Plan suggests thai this cul-de-sac road would be dedicated i public and maintained by the City. By code, the minimum paved width foi- the str.iight segment s ould be 24, with an 80' diameter cul-de-sac, resulting in total hard surface for the entire site, including road, of 21,000 s.f (assuming all three lots are conforming to the 75- 250 zone 25% limit). This translates to about 24% of the entire property ending up hardcover, or