Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(PUD), as required by the Mississippi River Overlay District regulations. R-2 Residential <br />District standards were used to review the proposal. The permitted density in the R-2 Residential <br />District is 3-7 units per acre. The preliminary plat proposes 6 units on 1.1 acres, resulting in a <br />density of 5.5 units per acre. The proposed twinhome lots are all 40 feet in width with the <br />exception of Lot 6, which is 44 feet wide. The R-2 Residential District requires 50-foot lots for <br />twinhomes. A reduced lot width may be permitted as part of the PUD, if approved by the City. <br />All proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size for twinhomes of 7,000 square feet. The R-2 <br />District requires a front yard, side yard, and rear yard setback of 30 feet, 10 feet, and 30 feet <br />respectively. All the proposed units meet these requirements. Ms. Geisler advised the property <br />is located in the Mississippi River Overlay District, but is located over 800 feet from the river <br />itself. The City is in the process of updating the regulations in accordance with State rules. The <br />District requirements state that the project shall be developed as a PUD, shall preserve 50% of <br />the land as open space, and restrict impervious surface to 25% of the lot area (or up to 35% with <br />a Conditional Use Permit). The site plan shows 71% open space in the yard areas for the <br />twinhomeunits, resulting in 29% impervious surface. As the Overlay District requirements are <br />not yet effective, staff feels the submitted plat meets the intent of the open space and. impervious <br />surface requirements. It should be noted that current river regulations limit impervious surface <br />to 30%, which the plan meets. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler explained the development will receive public access from Ebony <br />Street, a dedicated and improved public street. Each unit will have its own driveway access onto <br />Ebony Street, which is acceptable to staff. Some revisions are required to the grading and <br />drainage plan. A permit is required from the Lower Rum River Water Management <br />Organization. Ms. Geisler advised staff has requested revised building elevations be submitted <br />for review. Some minor changes are required to the landscaping plan. Density transitioning is <br />required along the eastern boundary of the site. Existing vegetation within the tree preservation <br />area appears to satisfy the transitioning requirement. The lot to the south, Lot 1, Block 1, <br />Clemens 2nd Addition is currently vacant. City Code does not require density transitioning <br />measures when a proposed residential development is adjacent to a vacant parcel. However, that <br />lot was just recently created with the intent of constructing a single family home on the lot. If <br />the City Council wishes to require additional landscaping along the southern property line, <br />suggestions have been included in the Council's packet for consideration. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler indicated the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat and <br />site plan at their September 7, 2006 meeting. The Commission recommended denial of the <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning requests, but did want to provide some <br />comments on the plan and site plan in the event that the City Council is inclined to approve the <br />plat. The consensus of the Commissioners was that the current plan was an improvement over <br />the previous plan that showed 8 townhome units. Based on this, the Planning Commission <br />recommended approval of the preliminary plat and site plan, with further review of density <br />transitioning requirements for the site. Ms. Geisler advised if the Comprehensive Plan <br />Amendment and Rezoning are granted, the submitted preliminary plat and preliminary site plan <br />meet City Code requirements with the exception of lot width. Staff is recommending that the <br />reduced lot width be considered for approval because the proposal is meeting all other lot <br />standards and setback requirements, and because the twinhome buildings will have less bulk and <br />a lower profile than the townhome buildings that were previously proposed for this site. <br /> <br />City Council / September 26, 2006 <br />Page 28 of 38 <br /> <br />P48 <br />