7.6. SR 03-21-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

since opening fall of 2015. The table on the following page identifies possible deviations from the residential requirement. Staff does not recommend changing the requirements for commercial uses. Some of the parking deficiencies could be accommodated with on -street parking. Additional alternatives may include the applicant contracting with the bank property to provide overflow parking; however, this limits future development opportunities on that property. Parking Needs Commercial Residential Required Available Deficiency Ord. @ 2.5/du 45 230 275 215 -60 Res. @ 2.34/du 45 215 260 215 -45 Res. @ 2.25/du 45 207 252 215 -37 Res. @ 2.0/du 45 184 229 215 -14 Parking continues to be a significant concern. When Coachman Ridge and The Depot received approval for parking reductions, their uses did not include commercial or restaurant uses, which add a different component when considering a reduction of the requirements. They are also located in close proximity to the train station, providing convenient access to that form of transportation. Finally, locating a parking lot below the bluff area, as discussed last meeting, would require paving the current access road and including curb and gutter. Due to additional regulations imposed by the DNR in the mild and Scenic River District, this may be difficult, if even allowed. Stormwater City ordinance requires that new developments treat all runoff to a degree that existing runoff rates and volumes are not exceeded. The applicant is utilizing a number of best practices like green roofs and permeable pavements to treat and reduce runoff on site, but additional control structures are required. The applicant is proposing to expand the city's stormwater pond north of the site to treat runoff generated by the development. The pond currently treats runoff from the city streets between Yale Court and the north end of the townhome development. Additionally, the feasibility study for the extension of Yale Court and construction of the frontage road along Highway 10, identifies a need to expand the pond for treatment of runoff generated by the new city street. On January 20, 2016, the applicant submitted a narrative describing two alternative treatment locations for runoff from the new city street. The alternatives have been reviewed with the City Engineer and the city does not support the proposed alternatives. His comments are included as an attachment. The city currently owns the locations where additional ponding is proposed and, with the expenses already associated with the project, cannot support increasing the costs for additional property needed for alternative ponding sites. The applicant addressed these concerns in the attached narrative dated January 20, 2016. Standards for Approval City ordinance section 30-1564 outlines the requirements for approval of a PUD: 7. Land will be honed into the PUD honing district only upon approval of a conceptplan for the PUD, pursuant to the procedure set forth in this section. A PUD will be author'.Zed on land in a PUD Zoning district only upon issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to the procedure set forth in this section.