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