Laserfiche WebLink
Bulk Standards <br />Single Family Lot <br />The table below outlines the proposed bulk standards and the minimum requirements for each of the two zoning districts (both <br />for the 65-foot and 80-foot wide districts). Regardless of whether a Zoning Amendment is approved or not, certain <br />modifications to the Preliminary Plat will be necessary. <br />Standard 11 <br />ProposedIF <br />R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 65 <br />R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 80 <br />Lot Size <br />> 0.15 acres <br />0.15 acres <br />0.25 acres <br />Lot Width <br />65 feet IF <br />65 feet <br />80 feet <br />Front Setback <br />25 feet IF <br />25 feet <br />30 feet <br />Side Setback IL <br />7.5 feet:11 <br />5 feetIF- <br />5 feet <br />Side (Corner) Setback <br />15 feet IF <br />25 feet <br />30 feet <br />Rear Setback <br />20 feet IF <br />20 feet <br />30 feet <br />1 Does not appear to impact any lots, but the standard should still be updated to match the requirement. <br />Attached Townhomes <br />The table below outlines the proposed bulk standards and the minimum requirements for the R-2 Residential (Medium Density) <br />District. Modifications to the Preliminary Plat are required to ensure compliance with the minimum standards. <br />Standard <br />Proposed 11 <br />R-2 District Requirement <br />Setback from Private Road and public road right of way <br />25 feet <br />25 feet <br />Setback from Exterior Development Boundary <br />30 feet <br />30 feet <br />Building to Building Setback <br />25 feet <br />20 feet <br />Streets and Access <br />As the Planning Commission may recall, the Sketch Plan proposed a single, long (-2,100 feet) cul-de-sac to service this entire <br />subdivision. The Applicant has continued to refine the Preliminary Plat in response to both Staff and the Planning Commission's <br />concerns with that original configuration. Staff met internally to review the potential of utilizing a portion of Fire Station #1 to <br />accommodate a second access into the subdivision. However, due to the location of the septic system, geothermal wells, and a <br />planned future expansion to the building, it was determined that this is not a viable option. <br />The Applicant has provided an updated Site Plan that now includes a second access from Armstrong Boulevard. City Staff sent <br />this to Anoka County Highway staff for feedback. The second access does not meet current spacing guidelines for a County <br />Highway; however, Anoka County Highway staff acknowledged the City's concerns about a single point of access serving this <br />many homes and have noted they think a solution can be found. They did state that any potential second access would need to <br />be a right in, right out only, must include a triangular, raised concrete median (pork chop) to reinforce the right in, right out <br />access, and would also require a right turn lane for southbound traffic on Armstrong Boulevard. <br />While Anoka County Highway has not provided formal approval, they are continuing to work with the City to find a safe <br />solution. Formal approval of the Preliminary Plat would need to be contingent upon, among other things, County approval of a <br />second access onto Armstrong Boulevard. <br />Currently, the east -west road providing the second access to Armstrong Boulevard is proposed as a private street. Staff from <br />multiple departments have indicated a preference for this to be a public street so that parking restrictions can be properly <br />enforced and the street can be kept clear of snow and ice. This will likely impact road width and possibly the building <br />configurations. <br />Density Transitioning <br />North and west of the Subject Property are existing residential lots zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing). Thus, regardless <br />of the outcome of the requested Zoning Amendment, density transitioning is required along the common boundary line with the <br />adjacent, impacted uses (the density transitionmg ordinance does not differentiate between 80 foot wide lots and 65 foot wide <br />lots, it's just based on whether they're in the MUSA or not). While there are multiple options to satisfy density transitioning, the <br />Applicant is proposing to utilize landscaping to achieve compliance. <br />Per City Code Section 117-110 (Residential Development Transitioning), if landscaping is utilized, one of the following two <br />options must be implemented: <br />e Vegetative Buffer "C" - a minimum 45 feet in width in common ownership with the following planting schedule per 100 <br />