Agenda - Council - 06/11/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-24- Principal Planner Trudgeon stated Eighty Seven LLC has applied for a preliminary plat review of a 42-unit townhome development. The property is generally Iocated in the southwest quadrant of T.H. #47 and 157 Avenue N.W. and the fee title owner is Blaine Edmundson. The subject property is zoned R-3 Urban Residential and allows up to 7 dwelling units per acre. The property is approximately 8.7 acres in size. When the right-of-way of Alpine Dr. and Hwy. 47 is factored out, the property has 7.1 net acres. The site plan is proposing 42 townhouse units with a net density of 5.91 units per acre. A preliminary Plat for the development h~s;~'l~een submitted and was approved with conditions by the Planning Commission in ApE:. !~:'~The proposed townhome structures consist of eight four-unit buildings and two five-unit-~b~afl!dings, city Code restricts lot coverage to 35% and the site plan indicates a total of 47,550iS'~ua~e;:feet of building space being constructed. Lot coverage on the subject property will b.e,a~i~'~)xi~ia{ely:2 5%, which meets City Code requirements. The buildings are setback at.,~teaS'~" 40 feet ~::'the entire perimeter of the parcel. In accordance with the variance,,~a~{ed earlier this '~X~in~g, the structures are also set back 25 feet from the edge of the p~4bI!~--~beet right of way. Sofi4:a:~oT,,the townhome units along private drives are located less than.25.~feet, from the., back of curb, w~:~il is contrary to adopted City policy. The developer will b~'~r~.uired to,a~gb the townhouse units to meet the 25-foot driveway length requirement. The tippHmnt is'!a1~i5 requesting a variance to construct a temporary cut-de-sac approximately 850 feet i~i:~ ii:;Fhe project is subject to the review and permitting process of the Lower Rum River Water~hed Management Organization WMO). The City has engaged the servi'~'~'ii~:~RF to do a ti:a~,c: noise level study. They determined a 6 to 10 foot wall would be re~iiXiC-ed:~'0t'~;developmen~,_,!fPr._which the developer is resp.,onsible. A Landscape Plan has been submitted l~hat 5~i ~enerally-:~bbeptable and meets the City s minimum standards. City Staff ~w!ll :eontin~e:4~:. re91ew.-the'plan and make comments regarding the plan at a future date. The R,)-U Z0 .nin-gDistrict cali'~"for a fifteen-foot landscaped buffer when a development:iS adj'aCenJ~ to R1 and ~" districts. The landscaping plan shows that there is landscaping proposed to b~ located in ~he.,'buffer area. He noted the plan has been modified to show additii3nal screening:at the southe:m end of the property to block headlights from shining on tbS.'structures of, the"~d}acent so~th~'parcels. Staff understands that there has been discussion betWeenthe dgx~el0pe/- and~ em neighbor about installing a fence. Staff finds this solution acceptable,; Based on concerns raised at a previous Planning Commission meeting:_~f~ipPlieant, has )e~iew.:ed the landscaping plan to show additional landscape screening along ~the:'k0u~h(v'~stem propertx~e Staff is recommending site plan approval contingent upon comphance with City Sta~ review letter dated April 26, 2002, the applicant receiving variances t~:.th~ front-yard setback an& cul~de-sac length, and subdivision approval. A1 Kempf,~ 15220 St. F. rancis Boulevard, pointed out there is only storm sewer along the southwest'l~ne, and not_sanitary sewer and water. Commissioner':lotms0'n pointed out the plantings will take some time to grow enough to provide effective screening.' In this case, a fence could be more effective. Craig, from Shade Tree Construction, stated several neighbors came to the December Planning Commission meeting and mentioned they would prefer a fence, or trees, or a combination. He said he would not like to put in a fence if the neighbors did not want it. Planning Commission/May 2, 2002 Page 6 of 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I