pf_01488 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-' -- II 1 CASE NUMSE R: APPLICANT: 1488~84 William Jones Page 2 4. Under the planned unit development regulations as is the case 1.n most co=munities in the Twin Cities, a spec1.fic plan can be prepared subject to City review and approval for developing the land to the same den.ity as alloyed by the zoning dutnct. but ac\'ommodating the residential units in a different housing fot'Ill. A good example of this principal is the development of the Peter.on land west of Cluek Lane, where a POD was approved for dwelling units up to four in . single .tructure, but the land is developed at the a-I Density and remains zoned R~1 (Single Family) . 5. In this case, the applicants propose to build four. four unit structures making a total of 16 units on the Aite. If you divide the totd land area on the site by 5,500 square feet. it is theoretically possible to place 17 units on thIS aite. ' 6. Attached is a copy of three sheets of drawings submitted by the applicant indicating the proposed structure, site plan, and interior plan of the un1.ts. Each unit will have a double gnage within the structure at the ground floor level. This structure w1.11 be . two .tory building with hip roof construction. The units will ori~nt prlnc1.pal1y east-west. with the first unIt 70 feet west of Lexington Avenue. The units W1.11 be located 40 feet south of Rose Place. .nd SS f~et north of the south property line, which 18 contIguous to the rear line of the Iota fronting to the south on Oakclest Avenue. 7. The site plan submitted is very difficult to ~ead and does not have all the appropriate information to be considered . preliminary plat. No landscape plan was ,ubmi tted &1 is required as a pllt't of the Planned Unit Developcent documents. Thus, the plans as submitted, we suggest. are not appropriate fnr fl:al conSideration for the planned unit development proce". 8. We bad suggested to the applicant when they considered this concept that they discuss it with the neighbors in the area, inasmuch as it, accept.tnce and cOlllpatlbility with the contiguous single fuily homeowners could be an important factor in the consideratio~ of the PUD design. It is conceivable that these structures wlth appropriate land~clping and screening for the parking areas could make a succes.ful transition to the mobile haue court and the futur~ commercial development which mayor may not OCCur there. The pldns submitted to date, bovever, do not al:lply demonstrate that this objective win be earned out.