05/08/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 6 Surrounding land uses included sewered residential to the north (Pheasant Hills Preserve), unsewered large lot residential to the west and south, and a single - family dwelling, pasture and wetland to the east. He noted the project site was currently zoned R, Rural District. Surrounding zoning included R -1X, Single Family Executive to the north, and R, Rural to the east, west and south. With respect to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MUSA Allocation), staff explained the City's 2002 Comprehensive Plan was currently being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. There were approximately 15.7 acres remaining in the City's MSUA bank. An existing development proposal, curfently being reviewed by the City (Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition), had requeste% leave the City with 11.2 acres until the Compre,si Metropolitan Council. He noted this was ins cent of 54.73 acres. res. This potentially would was approved by the e re requested allocation He noted with respect to rezoning, the City wa until the Comprehensive Plan had been appro allocation. With respect to the Preliminary Plat, h District was 12,825 square feet of this provision. However, the build �e Block 8 were, in part, bisected tl consistent with the definition o area suitable for de included only th sition to rezone the property as available for um lot size of the R -1X oted that all lots met or exceed area - "a =� for Lot 7, Block 1 and Lot 6, and. . d while the calculations were le land, the intent was to insure a contiguous land t should demonstrate that the buildable area roposed house pads. He noted t ® um lot dept 35 feet. Double frontage lots were required to have a minimum to d . f 145 feet e stated all lots met or exceeded these provisions. He stated the minim lots. He noted all lots m o vas 90 feet for standard lots and 115 feet for corner rxceeded those standards with the exception of Lot 20, Block 8. He stated this lot VO6uld need to be modified to conform to district standards. With respect to outlots, he noted there were six outlots included in the proposed subdivision. The outlots covered the majority of the ponds and wetland areas. It was unclear whether these are intended for dedication to the City or proposed for ownership by a Homeowners Association. He stated the applicant should be aware that any proposed dedication of outlots to the City would not be accepted in fulfillment of park dedication (payment in lieu) requirements. However, if the outlots were not intended for dedication to the City, they should be added to the adjacent proposed residential lots. With respect to setback, he explained the required setbacks established in the R -1X District were the greater of the following: 40 feet (Collector or Arterial Street), 30 feet (Local Street), 30 feet (front yard), 30 feet (rear yard), and ten feet (side yard — principal building). He stated the lots had adequate dimensions to meet required setback. DRAFT MINUTES