05-09-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#16-3822 May 4, 2016 Page 6 of 8 allows for the level of flexibility necessary to accomplish the proposed development. For discussion: 1. Should Block 3 be reconfigured so that no parts of the proposed building lots are within 250’ of the OHWL of Lake Classen in order to meet this RPUD condition? This likely will require additional survey work to establish the location of the OHWL on the north side of Wayzata Boulevard. Options are to reconfigure the building sites, or consider a variance to the RPUD 250’ separation requirement. (Planning Commission did not have an issue with varying from the 250’ limitation) 2. Should the entire site be rezoned to RPUD, or just the area being developed (i.e. rezone everything except Outlot A)? (Planning Commission suggested that the entire site should be rezoned to RPUD, but any future Phase 2 development be subject to a separate review process if/when that is proposed) Preliminary Plat Review 1. Does Council agree that the road should be private? It was noted by the Planning Commission that the westerly north-south road be constructed to a 32’ public road standard width (rather than 28’) within the 40’ proposed right-of-way corridor, given the potential to serve a future multi-family building. This would also impact the homes on Block 3 which have relatively short driveways, suggesting lot layout revisions may be appropriate. 2. Given the likelihood that a second access will be denied by Hennepin County, how will the developer revise the deign layout? 3. The general design and orientation of dwelling units proposed and the minimal lot sizes and setbacks as compared to the RPUD standards requires a significant level of development flexibility. Does Council have any concerns about the lot widths, setbacks, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), number of stories or other RPUD standards for which flexibility is required in this proposal? Does the Council have any concerns or questions regarding the design of the proposed dwelling units? 4. A small number of lots will have relatively short “back yards” where the home will be no more than 10-15 feet from a wetland buffer. Are these acceptable? The lots in these situations are typically smaller because the wetland buffer will be part of the commons area. 5. The proposed front setbacks to the street are a result of the ‘zig-zag’ lot configuration which allows for off-street parking. Is this configuration acceptable? 6. Do the private park and trail system satisfy the 10% private recreation area requirements of the RPUD District? 7. The grade changes and removal of existing trees along Wayzata Boulevard will significantly change the visual character of that section of Wayzata Boulevard, while also placing homes nearer the elevation of the highway at a distance of 50-60 feet from the traveled road. Does this present any specific concerns? The perimeter vegetation plan should be reviewed – is there a need for additional buffering of the homes from Wayzata Boulevard?