Laserfiche WebLink
8. The council may establish vaned and reasonable lot area,frontage, sideyard, and setback requirements for a PUD <br /> and may authon�Ze a density P)hich it determines to be appropriate under the circumstances.Any permitted density <br /> shall be consistent Pith the city's comprehensive plan and not adversely affect the public health, safety and nvr fare. <br /> The typical lot area, frontage, and setback requirements for the R-1c zoning district,which is the most <br /> comparable single-family district, are 11,000 square feet, 80 foot minimum width, and 30 foot front <br /> yard setbacks. The side yard setbacks differ,but a minimum of 15 feet between buildings is <br /> maintained. The proposal includes four different lot types, all of which are below the R-1c standard. <br /> The largest lots are approximately 75 feet wide and 9,750 square feet with 15 feet between buildings. <br /> The smallest lots are 44 feet wide and 5,720 square feet with 10 feet between buildings. Front yard <br /> setbacks for all lot types are 25 feet. The reduced width, size, and setbacks are permissible via the PUD <br /> process, but the final dimensions/size can be adjusted by the City Council or recommended for <br /> change by the Planning Commission. <br /> 9. More than one principal building may be constructed on a lot P)ithin a PUD if authon�Zed by the council. Unless <br /> othena ise permitted by the council, a PUD shall comply Pith the schedules of dimensional regulations set forth in <br /> this article, except that individual lots shall have no less than 80 percent of the minimum area for similar uses. <br /> Each principal building will be located on its own lot. Approval of a PUD also requires satisfying all of <br /> the conditions for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Conditions for approval are as follows. <br /> 7. 1Vill not endanger, injure or detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of otherpropeay in the immediate vicinity or <br /> thepublic health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience orgeneral nvr fare of the neighborhood or the city. <br /> The project will not detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate <br /> vicinity. The PUD is adequately served by existing and proposed transportation networks. Traffic and <br /> transportation impacts identified during the previous EAW remain valid. <br /> 2. 1Vill be consistent Pith the comprehensive plan. <br /> The comprehensive plan guides this area for urban residential uses with a maximum density of 8 <br /> dwelling units per acre and an average density of 3 to 4 dwelling units per acre. After removing the <br /> non-buildable areas, the average density of the development is approximately 3.5 units per acre. The <br /> comprehensive plan also guides this area for single-family and detached townhome style units. The <br /> proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> 3. 1Vill not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacantproperty. <br /> The project will not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding properties. The <br /> proposed configuration of lots,grading, stormwater, and right-of-way alignments maintain the <br /> development potential of the surrounding lots. The applicant has spoken with the adjacent property <br /> owner to ensure their ability to develop is not restricted. <br /> 4. 1Vill be served adequately by and Pill not adversely affect essential public facilities and services including streets,police <br /> and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, Pater and sen)er systems,parks and schools;and Pill not, in particular, <br /> create traf c congestion or interference Pith traf c on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares. <br /> There is some concern that the configuration of parcels may impact refuse disposal and plowing. The <br /> configuration of the driveways in the detached townhome areas has the potential to adversely affect these <br /> services, specifically along Edison Street as there are 37 driveways along a short roadway segment. <br /> Nearby residents have also expressed concerns over traffic congestion and traffic on neighboring public <br /> streets. To alleviate these concerns,residents requested removing the Lincoln Street connection and <br /> completing a traffic study. The Planning Commission can recommend either request to the City Council. <br /> N:ADepartments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\P\P 16-02 Nfiske Meodows\City Council 5-2-2016\7.1 sr Miske Meodows.docx <br />