09-19-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

_ #OS-3131 July 13,2005 Page 5 - 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 iiicreased to 15'...) - sicle yards abutting street must meet front setback requirement (all lots meet this) - 30'max buildiiig height(based on proposed grading plan—no need for variances) H. Lot Coverage vs. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Section 78-1403,the I S%Lot Coverage limit,states that the 15%limit applies to all zoiung districts; it doesn't make an exception for RPUD. However,the RPUD Dist�ict does not specifically establish a `Lot Coverage by Structures' limit. Instead, the RPUD standaxds 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,l-leve124' 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, whereas these lots are shown with homes of 3300-3600 s.f. footprints. Planning Conanzission sl:ould �liscarss and make�recomnze�edatiott as to wlietlter bot/t tlte IS%limit aizd tl:e FAR s/iould apply to this developnzent, or jirst tlze FAR. I. Road Layout and Standards The proposed road layout meets the corridor standards of a 50'road right-of-way and 104'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. TIZe City would normally require that all lots in a subdivision be served with driveways from the new local road rather than from 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 Williaulson property. It would not be appropriate to require the church to access onto this new residential street, and the Williamson home is oriented slich that re-directing its access off of Willow would be unreasonable and serve no real purpose. J. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed The road to be created can be public or private based on the CMP guidelines,as it will be of a11 urbau natl�re but likely in a`plaimed' development. There is no appareiit 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 applicant. Because this will be an urban development,the City will ultimately own and maintain the sanitary sewer lines (and City water mains, if provided).