11-21-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

' #OS-3131 July 13,2005 Page 5 - 50' setback on collector or ai�terial streets (Willow Dr. requires 50',plat drawing shows only 30' for Lots 1, 2 a�id 11, and should be revised; 50' will not be a problem for Lot 2, but will have some inlpact on Lot 11; e�istii7g Willian�son house at 40' will reinaiii nonconforming...) - 10` side yard on interior lot lines (all lots confonn), 15' side ya.rd at eaterior of RPUD (east liile of lot 6 proposed at 10', should revise to 15'; if church lot ends up not being rezoiled RPUD, then north yard of Lot 4 should be to increased to l 5'...) - side yards abutting street must meet front setback requirement (all lofis meet this) - 30'max building height (based on proposed grading pla.n—no need for variailces) H. Lot Coverage vs. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Section 78-1403,tl�e 15%Lot Coverage limit,states that tlze 15%lunit applies to all zonu�g districts; it doesn't make an e�ception for R.PUD. However,the RPUD District does not specifically establisll a `Lot Coverage by Structures' linut. Instead, the RPUD standards limit individual lots to 50% hardcover and an individual lot Floor Area Ratio(FAR.=gross area of all floors divided by�oss lot area) of 0.5. This means a 14,000 s.f. Iot is allou�ed 7,000 s.f. of floor space. A 2-story 30' x 70' ��valkout with a basement, two stories, and an attached 3-stall,l-leve124' a 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. luniting 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 witli homes of 3300-3600 s.f. footprults. Plannifzg Conznzission slrould disccrss a�zd fnake a recornmendation as to wlzetlaer botla tlze IS%lfnzit artd tlze FAR slaould apply to tlzis develop�nent, or just the FAR. I. Road La3�out and Standards The proposed road layout ineets the corridor standards of a 50'road right-of-way and 100'cul-de-sac diatneter, and the radius appears to meet the 275' standard for a 30 mph road. Tl�e access location onto Wi11ow Drive is directly across Elm La�le, wluch is appropriate. The City would nonizally require that all lots in a subdivision be served with driveways froin the new local road rather than from the arterial(Willow is defiiled in the CMP as a`B Minor Arterial"). The only lots proposed to access other than fi om the proposed new road are the existing church and the Williamson propei-ly. It would not be appropriate to require the churcli to access onto this new residential street, and the Willia�.iison home is oriented such tliat re-directing iis access off of Willow would be uiu easonable and serve no real pur�ose. J. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed The road to be created can be public or pz�ivate based on tlle CMP guidelines,as it will be of au L�rUan nature but likely in a'pla�-uied'developinent. There is no apparent need for additional right-of-way for Willow Drive. The pro's and con's of public versus private road sliould be discussed with the applicant. Because tlus will be an urban development,the City will ultimately ovv�i a�id nlaintaiui the sanitaiy sewer lines (and City water mains, if provided).