02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

i 16-3807 February l I,2016 Page 7 to be further west than the west boundary of the property to maintain appropriate sepazation from the OCB/Way7ata Blvd intersection. Note that there is an existing driveway onto Wayzata Boulevard at the very northwest corner of the property. This driveway is shared with Dumas and needs to be addressed by the applicant — potentially remove it or relocate it further west to continue to serve the Dumas property. Reaz Yard Setbacks. Nineteen af the 391ots have a rear yard (or side yard for Lots 7 & 8, Block 1} abutting either Old Crystal Bay Road or Wayzata Boulevard. Landscaping/berming is proposed along the frontage of these lots to provide for buffering of the residences fram these main roads. It is uncleaz whether there are gaps in the perimeter buffers, and Planning CoIIunission should consider whether an appropriate balance is established between maintaining views into the site while providing screening and separation for the homes from the adjoining roadways. Whi1e the homes on these perimeter lots are placed to meet the 50' setback requirement from the major roads, functional (i.e. relatively flat) rear yard areas in most cases will be only 20'-30' in depth. Lot Widths. Generally all of the proposed buildin,g lots have a functional width of 65 feet ax the building setback, except for the 5 lots in Block 3 at the SE corner of the site. The Block 3 Iats cluster around a partial cul-de-sac and are approximately 45' in width at the setback but widen towards the rear. Side Setbacks. The 45-foQt Iots are proposed to maintain separation of 10' between buildings {5' side setbacks each side), while the 65' lots aze proposed to maintain a 10' setback on one side yard and 5' on the opposite side. The proposed site plan depicts l O locations where there is a 10- foot separation between homes; 8 where there is a 15-foot gap; and 9 where the separation between homes is 20 feet. The typical building pad on the 65-foot lots is 50' wide and 65' deep; on the 45-foot lots the pads are typically 35' wide and 75' deep. A potential ramification o� forcing the sepazation between buildings to be 20' throughout the development would likely be the loss of as many as 2 lots. This would reduce the development density to 2.94 units per acre,belaw the 3.0 zuiits per acre threshold. Front Setbacks. Front yard setbacks as measured from the front lot line axe proposed at 20 feet for lots without a baulevard sidewalk (leaving a parlt�ing area from garage door to curb of 30 feet), with a 2S-foot setback for those lots with a boulevard sidewalk (leaving 25 feet from garage door to sidewaik}. In each case this will allow parking of one or more vehicles in front af the garage without hanging into the street or encroaching onto the sidewaik. This ensures visibility along the road s�aould large vehicles be parked in the driveway, and en.sures that vehicles will not overlap into area used for snow storage. Lot Coverage vs. Floor Area Ratio (FA,R�. Zoning Code Section 78-1403, the 15%Lot Coverage lirnit for lots less than 2 acres in area, states that the 15% limit applies to ali zoning districts; it doesn't make an exception for RPUD. However, the RPUD District does not specifically establish a `Lot Coverage by Structures' limit. Instead, the RPUD standards limit individual lots ta 50% hardcover and an individual Iot Floor Area Ratio {FAR= gross azea of all floors divided by r�oss Iot area) of 0.5. This means a 14,004 s.f. lat is allowed 7,OQ0 s.f, of total floor space. For example, a 35' x 65' foofiprint incorporating gazage space, fiill basement and two stories, would yield 6,825 s.f. of floor azea; on a 14,OQ0 s.f. lot the FAR would be 0.49, meeting the 4.50 FAR limit.