11-30-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 During the “concept review” stage, staff noted the following comments regarding the project: The proposed concept relies on a single entrance point from Rice Street that would serve four buildings containing a total of 18 units, two four-unit buildings and two five-unit buildings. The private roadway serves individual driveways for each unit and the two-car garage fronts. Staff would raise the following issues with the proposed design: 1. Internal spacing. The spacing of the buildings results in 64 feet separation from garage to garage. This is the absolute minimum for a private roadway and 20 foot deep driveways – again, the minimum depth for parking a vehicle in the driveway. The Villas project noted above was designed (at the insistence of the City) with 75 feet minimum face-to-face separation. This dimension permits 24 feet of driveway depth, a more realistic parking depth, and a 27 foot roadway which accommodates two way traffic and avoids conflicts with parked vehicles. In addition, this large dimension could accommodate a sidewalk along the private road if considered appropriate. Follow up: The plans submitted show the depth of the townhomes to be 7 feet, 6 inches shallower than the original proposal. This will result in a net gain of 15 feet between the two sides. The driveway and road access will remain the same. In addition, the project has been reduced to 14 units, down from 18. However, the buildings are still proposed to be 64 feet apart. This dimension (as noted) leaves an extremely limited space for driveway depth and private street width. Moreover, it eliminates the possibility of any sidewalk or similar pedestrian access. 2. North side. The rear yard area of the townhouse building area is set back from the rear building line at a dimension of about 10 feet, with the units themselves set about 20 feet from the lot lines. The units show a patio door existing the structure in that area. Because the grading plans show significant slopes along the rear line of many of the proposed units, the patio doors would not access usable area. There is question whether these slopes would be maintainable – the City typically requires slopes of less than 4:1, whereas some of those shown are 2:1 or steeper. Follow up: The buildings have been reduced in size in order to accommodate a larger setback and future patio area. It should be noted that the buildings on the north side are shown at about 30 feet from the property line, and 25 feet from an existing retaining wall. 3. South side. The setback of the property from the rear lot lines of the Iona Lane properties is just 10 feet. It would be common for the City to consider a setback adjoining the rear property line of adjacent property to be no less than the setback imposed for that abutting yard. In this case, the existing rear setback for those abutting homes is more than 100 feet in most cases, with a required setback of at least 30 feet. Placing the townhomes in such a way as to encroach to within 10 feet of the common property line is problematic.