01-27-2014 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#13-3637 December 5,2013 Page 3 wetlands and the property configuration, PC suggested that the slope of the new road might be analyzed to see if it can be angled slightly to change the headlight angle, and that applicant should consider offering to plant screening at that property. 4. With regards to the proposed narrow 20' outlot corridor leading down to Watertown Road, Planning Commission recommended that it not become part of a trail system as that might have negative impacts to the adjacent existing homes on either side. Instead, PC recommends that the existing driveway in that corridor be removed and reverted to vegetation. 5. In reviewing the areas where the RPUD lot standards are not being adhered to, Planning Commission recommended flexibility as follows: a. Allow the side street setback for the two lots abutting Willow Drive to be 25 feet (as it would be if Willow Drive was classified as a local street) rather than the 50' setback required because Willow Drive is a collector road. b. Allow the substandard lot widths for Lots 3-4-5 which abut the cul-de-sac. c. Allow Lots 1-3-4 to contain a contiguous dry buildable area slightly less than the required 15,000 s.£ (0.34 ac.) on the basis that the overall density is acceptable and that there is sufficient area within the sites to allow homes to be developed. 6. Noting that the developer is planning to build modestly priced and sized homes, Planning Commission recommended that the 15% lot coverage standard be imposed on this development rather than the RPUD standard 50% Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The 50% FAR would likely allow for much larger homes to be constructed if no 15% limit is in place. The developer has no objection to this limitation. 7. Planning Commission after a significant amount of discussion concluded that the RPUD 10% private recreation area requirement would be substantially met by a combination of the following: a) dedication of the proposed conservation easement over the defined tree preservation area to the northeast of the creek; and 2) dedication of a 20' wide trail easement over and concurrent with the existing 20' sewer line easement in proposed Lots 3-4-5 as well as the proposed sewer easement extension over proposed Lots 1 & 2, Block 1. It was noted that the proximity to Hackberry Park really eliminates the need for a substantial neighborhood park to be developed just for this subdivision. 8. Planning Commission recommended that the plat layout and the site configuration did not necessarily justify the creation of an outlot to accommodate the wetland and tree preservation areas, and that having those site features encumbered by easements over each individual lot would be acceptable. Easements for the proposed rain gardens within the individual lots would likewise be sufficient. 9. The developer confirmed that he no longer intends to pursue municipal water from Long Lake, and will develop with private wells.