08-08-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Rezoning. The development is based on RPUD zoning, which allows for flexibility in design necessary to meet goals of the comprehensive plan. The chart below highlights the flexibility necessary. The only change in the chart is the FAR increased to 0.43, reflecting a 3,400 square foot home, still below the standard.??? RPUD District Minimum SFR Standard Proposed Lot Standards Flexibility Required? Minimum project size: 5 acres 2.34 acres Yes Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet 7,800 s.f. – 61,400 s.f. (incl. wetlands) 4 of 7 lots < 15,000 s.f. Yes Minimum lot width at setback line: 90 feet 50’ min and typical/ 70 ft widest Yes Minimum lot depth: 125 feet Varies - all 150’ + No Minimum front building setback: 25 feet 20’ feet min. (25’ to Shadywood) Yes Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet Side 1: 7 feet Yes Minimum rear yard setback: Lesser of 40’ or 20% of lot depth (30 feet) Lesser of 40’ or 20% of lot depth No Maximum FAR: 0.50 .43 (assumes 3,400 sq ft single story home) No Wetland building setback: Greater of 35 feet or MCWD buffer plus 10 feet 35 feet (Lot 6) Yes Private Recreational Area: 10% of gross project area 0% proposed Yes Building height: Maximum of 30 feet (Not defined) No All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth. No Updated information Due to the nature of ongoing review of the application in addition to the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the applicant has revised the drawings, provided as Exhibit A and summarized here: Engineering Review: Review of the preliminary information was completed on July 21, 2016 and forwarded to the applicant. In response, staff met with the applicant to go over these comments, many of which were based on incomplete storm water planning; this information has been provided and is being reviewed. Should the Council wish to approve the preliminary plat, staff suggests a condition that all engineering comments be addressed to the satisfaction of staff and the city engineer. It was noted during the planning commission review that the proposed ponds required the removal of several significant trees. Responding to the goal of preserving as many trees as possible, the developer proposes to use pervious pavers in the driveways and reconfiguring the pond shape and locations. Adding pervious pavers reduces the hardcover as calculated by the watershed district below their review threshold, meaning their rules pertaining to rate and volume do not apply. However, because of the history of flooding in the area, in particular along Kelly Avenue, staff has evaluated the grading plan to ensure that storm-water is retained onsite and distributed at the current (predevelopment) rate and volume