07-11-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#15-3763a July 7, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Site Layout Issues. Lots 2-3-4-5 do not meet the 200-foot width requirement as measured at the 50’ front setback line. These 4 lots do not abut a public or private road meeting City standards. Determination of which lot lines to consider as ‘front’ and ‘rear’ for setback purposes is not obviously apparent due to the lack of road frontage, so the conventions of Section 82-256(c)(2)b. have been referred to. While these four lots each have a depicted building site, imposition of the back-lot setback requirements will be an issue for the building locations on Lots 3, 4 and 5. The submitted plans show all lot line setbacks as 30 feet, not meeting code requirements for the standard RR-1B setbacks (50’ front and rear, 30’ on the sides) nor the increased back lot setbacks (75’ front and rear, 45’ sides). Exhibit D of the PC memo is a staff sketch depicting the required setbacks based on Lots 2-3-4-5 being defined as back lots. Road Layout & Front Lot/Back Lot Requirements. Subdivision Code Section 82-283(b)(6) states: “(6) Culs-de-sac shall be discouraged; proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be subdivided unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions or unless in the opinion of the city such extension is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the existing layout or the most advantageous future development of adjacent tracts.” Section 82-283(h)(2) states that “…A cul-de-sac shall be provided at the end of a permanent dead-end street in accordance with the city’s construction standards and specifications.” Section 82-281(d) states that the typical section for a private residential street serving 3-6 dwelling units is 24’ minimum paved width within a 50-foot wide right-of-way. Rather than extending existing Kintyre Lane and improving Outlot A of Tamarack Hill to a private road standard, applicant’s proposal would simply extend shared driveways to serve proposed homes, and would not provide cul-de-sacs. In staff’s opinion this is inconsistent with the letter and intent of the subdivision code. Subdivision Code Section 82-256(c) established subdivision standards in 1993 for the use of front/back lot divisions. The proposed layout absent the full-width paved roads and cul-de-sacs functionally creates a front lot/back lot configuration. However, Section 82-256(c)(1)b. states that “b. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual lot splits but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors.” (Emphasis added) In the rural area (2-acre and 5-acre zones) the City only rarely deviates from the code provisions requiring a cul-de-sac when serving three or more homes. Adherence to road design standards is always a goal, intended to avoid the creation of back lots with long driveways. Where such deviations have occurred, identification of unique site factors has been critical in order to support the granting of variances. An example is the recent Mooney Lake Preserve plat, in which a cul-de-sac was shortened and shared driveways lengthened, based on difficult steeply sloped topography and to avoid the destruction of a large swath of trees within a heavily wooded area. Those two factors were seen by the Planning Commission and Council as a valid basis for a variance. The approval was conditioned on each new home having to provide a loop driveway near the home, sufficient for maneuvering by emergency and service vehicles, and a paved shared driveway width of 20 feet the entire length. In recent discussions with Fire Chief Van Eyll, it was indicated that if the approval of the current proposal results in private driveways rather than conforming roads and cul-de-sacs, the same conditions would be required for applicant’s development.