Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08May 14, 2006 Item No. MAY 17, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DONNELLY FARM PUD AMENDMENT Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve Addendum B to the Development Contract and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Donnelly Farm addition and adopt the findings of fact. Adoption of this motion will result in revised architectural standards for the remaining vacant single family home lots within the Donnelly Farm development. Overview The Donnelly Farm final plat and PUD was approved by City Council on November 1, 2004. Sixty-two of the 125 single family lots within the development are platted to meet the minimum RS -3, Single Family Residential District standards. Sixty-three of the 125 single family lots were allowed to have reduced lot widths ranging from 75 to 80 feet and minor reductions in the minimum lot area requirements. These reduced lot standards were allowed on the condition that these 63 "restricted" lots incorporate increased architectural standards including side entry garages. These standards were imposed in an effort to off -set the reduction in the lot width and lot area and to promote a house plan that did not focus on a garage forward design. Jim Deanovic representing Wyatt Pudel Pointer I, LLC has indicated the current homes built on the restricted lots with side loaded garages have introduced high quality unique house plans to the development but the side loaded garages have also limited the variety of architecture on those lots. The developer has also indicated the side loaded garage requirement has limited his ability to market these lots. Therefore, the developer has submitted a PUD amendment application to modify the architectural standards for the restricted single family lots within the Donnelly Farm PUD to eliminate the side entry garage requirement. At their May 6, 2010 meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the PUD amendment. There was no public comment. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Donnelly Farm PUD amendment as presented. Staff also recommends approval of the Donnelly Farm PUD amendment. Primary Issues to Consider Is the proposed PUD amendment to modify the architectural standards for the restricted single family lots consistent with the intent of the original PUD? The proposed modifications to the single family design standards in the Donnelly Farm PUD, as outlined in the attached planning report, reflect the spirit and intent of the PUD as originally approved in 2004. The amended standards will address the garage forward design issue, encourage architectural diversity and provide increased flexibility for the developer and builders to market the lots. Applying the proposed architectural standards to all of the remaining vacant single family lots will provide more variety in housing plans and a better planned neighborhood. Supporting Information • Addendum B to the Development Contract and PUD Agreement for Donnelly Farm. • Findings of Fact. • May 6, 2010 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. • „April 30, 2010 Planning Report. I Allyn 9' Kuennen, AICP Associate Planner Financial Impact: $ None Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan Notes: .� g (reserved for recording information) ADDENDUM "B" TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DONNELLY FARM ADDITION AGREEMENT dated , 2010, by and between the CITY OF LAKEVILLE, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and WYATT PUDEL POINTER I, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer"). 1. BACKGROUND. A. The City and Tollefson Development, Inc. previously entered into a development contract and planned unit development agreement for Donnelly Farm Addition dated November 1, 2004 and recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's office on May 9, 2005 as Document No. 2319946 (the "Development Contract/PUD") B. In 2006 a portion of the lots within Donnelly Farm Addition were replatted as Donnelly Farm 2nd Addition. The City and Tollefson Development, Inc. entered into Addendum "A" to Development Contract and Planned Unit Development Agreement for Donnelly Farm Addition dated March 13, 2006 and recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's 15160904 1 LKVL:Donnelly Fane Addition SRN:r05/17/2010 (Amendment B to PUD) office on April 21, 2006 as Document No. 2422065 to have the Development Contract/PUD apply to Donnelly Farm 2nd Addition. C. Tollefson Development, Inc. assigned the Development Contract/PUD to the Developer by Assignment dated October 19, 2009, recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's office on November 9, 2009 as Document No. 2695313. 2. EXTENSION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT/PUD. The Development Contract/PUD shall remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified by this Addendum `B". 3. PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION. The Development Contract/PUD allowed 63 of the 125 single family lots within Donnell Farm Addition to have reduced lot widths ranging from 75 to 80 feet with minor reductions in the minimum lot area requirements. These reduced lot standards were allowed on condition that the 63 "restricted lots" include the following architectural design standards. • A front porch with a minimum depth of six feet that extends across the front fagade of the home. • A two -car side entry garage with an optional attached third car garage that may face the street. • Gabled and dormered roofs and brick or stone knee walls. • A minimum 7 -foot interior side yard setback and 20 -foot corner lot side yard setback. • Single family home styles/architecture must be approved by the Planning Director. These standards were imposed in an effort to off -set the reduction in the lot width and lot area requirements and to promote a house plan that did not focus on a garage forward design. There are currently 73 vacant lots remaining in the project. Thirty-six of the remaining vacant lots are defined as restricted lots by the current PUD standards for the project. The Developer is requesting a PUD amendment to modify the design standards for the following 73 15160904 2 LKVL:Donnelly Fane Addition SRN:r05/17/2010 (Amendment B to PUD) vacant single family lots remaining in Donnelly Farm Addition to allow front facing garages with additional architectural requirements: Lots 1 thru 13, Block 2 Lots 1, 2 and 16, Block 3 Lots 1 thru 4, 9 thru 11, 13 and 15 thru 24, Block 4 Lots 1 thm 5, Block 5 Lots 1&2, 5 thru 13, 18&19, 21 thru 27 and 32&33, Block 6 Lots 1 thru 4, 7 thru 9, and 11, Block 7 The goals of the proposed PUD amendment are as follows: a) Propose a variety of high quality housing in the project designed with a mixture of architectural elements and materials that meet the intent of the current PUD standards. b) Locate house plans in the project appropriately to provide architectural diversity in the neighborhood. c) Provide interesting and appealing streetscapes. d) Provide sustainable neighborhoods. e) Provide house plans that are desired by the current housing market. 4. PUD AMENDMENT APPROVAL. The City hereby grants approval of an amendment to the Development Contract/PUD for Donnelly Farm to include the following PUD standards: All Remaining Single Family Lots will include or comply with the following: 1. No residence shall be constructed with the same olor scheme as a residence located next door, across the street or kitty-corner from the residence to be constructed and -no residence shall be constructed with the same building elevation as the residence across the street or next door. 2. The house plans will include a combination of the following architectural features: a. Porches b. Railings c. Shutters d. Columns e. Brick or stone knee walls f. Gabled, hip and dormered roofs 151609v03 3 LKVL:Donnelly Farm Addition SRN:r05/12/2010 (Amendment B to PUD) vacant single family lots remaining in Donnelly Farm Addition to allow front facing garages with additional architectural requirements: Lots 1 thru 13, Block 2 Lots 1, 2 and 16, Block 3 Lots 1 thru 4, 9 thru 11, 13 and 15 thru 24, Block 4 Lots 1 thru 5, Block 5 Lots 1&2, 5 thru 13, 18&19, 21 thru 27 and 32&33, Block 6 Lots 1 thru 4, 7 thru 9, and 11, Block 7 The goals of the proposed PUD amendment are as follows: a) Propose a variety of high quality housing in the project designed with a mixture of architectural elements and materials that meet the intent of the current PUD standards. b) Locate house plans in the project appropriately to provide architectural diversity in the neighborhood. c) Provide interesting and appealing streetscapes. d) Provide sustainable neighborhoods. e) Provide house plans that are desired by the current housing market. 4. PUD AMENDMENT APPROVAL. The City hereby grants approval of an amendment to the Development Contract/PUD for Donnelly Farm to include the following PUD standards: All Remaining Single Family Lots will include or comply with the following: 1. No residence shall be constructed with the same color scheme as a residence located next door, across the street or kitty-corner from the residence to be constructed and no residence shall be constructed with the same building elevation as the residence across the street or next door. 2. The house plans will include a combination of the following architectural features: a. Porches b. Railings c. Shutters d. Columns e. Brick or stone knee walls f. Gabled, hip and dormered roofs 15160904 3 LKVL:Donnelly Fane Addition SRN:r05/17/2010 (Amendment B to PUD) g. Variety of siding types, widths and colors h. Shakes i. Brackets j. Architectural garage doors with windows k. Vinyl soffit and fascia 1. Window cornices m. Multi -colored elevations 3. If a front loaded garage is proposed, the front eave of the garage will not extend more than 8 feet in front of the eave of the front stoop or porch. Architectural garage doors with windows will be required for all front loaded garages. 4. If a two -car side entry garage is proposed the optional third car garage may face the street. 5. The developer/builder will provide the City an updated project matrix with each building permit illustrating the house plan, elevation, and colors built in the project to date on the remaining 74 lots subject to these standards to illustrate how the revised PUD standards are being enforced. 6. All house plans for the remaining lots will need to be approved by the Planning Department as previously required for all building permits within the Donnelly Farm PUD. In addition to the standards listed above, fifty -percent of the remaining 73 lots will be built with house plans that include the following elements: a. A front porch with a minimum depth of six feet that extends across the front fagade of the home b. Brick or stone knee walls on the front of the garage. c. Brick or stone pillars incorporated into the columns of the porch. d. If the porch has no railing, then the stone or brick knee walls would have to be continued along the side and rear walls of the porch. e. If a front loaded garage is proposed the front eave of the garage will not extend more than 7 feet in front of the eave of the front porch. Architectural garage doors with windows will be required for all front loaded garages. Setbacks for the 36 vacant restricted lots will be maintained as follows: a. The restricted lots listed below will be allowed to have a minimum 7 foot interior side yard setback and 20 foot corner lot side yard setback consistent with the original approved PUD standards. 151609v04 4 LKVL:Donnelly Fane Addition SRN:r05/17/2010 (Amendment B to PUD) Lot Block 2-12 2 1-2 3 9-11,19-23 4 1-5 5 2,7-11 6- 7-9,11 7 36 Total Lots IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Addendum "B" was executed by the parties the day and year first above written. CITY LAKEVILLE BY: Holly Dahl, Mayor (SEAL) AND: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) Charlene Friedges, City Clerk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2010, by Holly Dahl and by Charlene Friedges, respectively the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Lakeville, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 15160904 5 LKVL:Donnelly Farm Addition SRN:r05/17/2010 (Amendment B to PUD) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF 11 LLC The foregoing i=�fAPb✓1C s acknowledged before me this 11 day of 2010, by --!K M F,& the Ch t e S'r' f A A A) VVYATT PUDEL POINTER 1, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability comps behalf behalf of the company. 15160904 6 LKVL:Donnelly Farm Addition SRN:r05/17/2010 (Amendment B to PUD) JOAN N1 WOLLSCHLAGER ',20,12 DRAFTED BY: CAmpmu KmnsoN Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Fagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 SRN:ms 15160904 6 LKVL:Donnelly Farm Addition SRN:r05/17/2010 (Amendment B to PUD) CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT DONNELLY FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT On May 6, 2010 the Lakeville Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the request of Jim Deanovic of Wyatt Pudel Pointer I, LLC for an amendment to the Donnelly Farm Planned Unit Development (PUD) to revise the architectural design standards for the restricted single family lots. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed planned unit development amendment preceded by published and mailed notice. The applicant was present and the Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. The City Council hereby adopts the following: 1. The property is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. 2. The property is located in Planning District 5 and is classified as low density residential in the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 3. The property is located south of 195"' Street, east of Dodd Boulevard (C.R. 9), and west of Holyoke Avenue, in the City of Lakeville, Dakota County, Minnesota and is legally described as follows: Lot 9, Block 1 Lots 2-12, Block 2 Lots 1-15, Block 3 Lots 5-11 and 19-23, Block 4 Lots 1-9, Block 5 Lots 2, 7-11, Block 6 Lots 5, 7-9, and 11-13, Block 7 All in Donnelly Farm Addition 4. Section 11-96-21A of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a planned unit development amendment be processed according to the requirements of Chapter 4 of the Zoning Ordinance which provides that a minor planned unit development amendment may not be approved unless certain criteria are satisfied. The criteria and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the Official City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment does not affect the use of the property as a single family development. The single family use is consistent with the policies and provisions of Planning District 5 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with future land uses of the area. The PUD amendment will not change the proposed use of the property as a single family development. The amendment to the architectural design standards of the restricted single family lots will be compatible with the adjacent existing and future low and medium density residential land uses. C) The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in this Code. The proposed PUD amendment to revise the single family architectural design standards is consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements and the Donnelly Farm PUD. d) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. The revised architectural design standards will not impact existing public services. e) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The revised architectural design standards will not impact the capacity of the streets serving the property. 5. The planning report dated April 30, 2010 prepared by Associate Planner Allyn Kuennen is incorporated herein. DATED: May 17, 2010 I 2 CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: BY: Holly Dahl, Mayor Charlene Friedges, City Clerk Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2010 Page 3 • Chair Davis asked if the variance would go away after the Zoning ,�Cridinance Update is approved by the City Council. Mr. Morey stated that'the variance would continue to be in force if this extension request is app'r"oved, but if the sign is not constructed by June 20, 2011 and another' extension was not granted, the variance would lapse. • Commissioner Lillehei asked at what point in tine does one utilize the sign variance? He also asked if the current signqdalifies for the variance or does it only apply to the installation of a ne sign? Mr. Morey stated that the existing freestanding sign can be raised up to 50 feet in height or a new freestanding sign up to 50 feet` iii height can be installed at the existing location or another location g)x site provided it meets setback requirements. Her current freestanding sign is 30 feet in height so if the sign was raised even one foot, it wood take advantage of the height allowed by the approved variance 10.21 Motion was mad d seconded to recommend to City Council approval of a one year extension,fbr the Comfort Inn sign variance as presented. Ayes: �,illehei, Davis, Adler, Grenz, Glad, Maguire Nays. 0 ITEM 6. DONNELLY FARM Chair Davis opened the public hearing to consider the application of Wyatt Pudel Pointer I, LLC for an amendment to the Donnelly Farm Planned Unit Development to modify the design standards for the restricted single family lots to allow front facing garages, located south of 195th Street, east of Dodd Boulevard (C.R. 9), and west of Holyoke Avenue. The Recording Secretary attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with State Statutes and City Code. Project Manager Matthew Weiland presented an overview of their request. Associate Planner Allyn Kuennen presented the planning report. Mr. Kuennen stated that Planning Department staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment as submitted and outlined in Exhibit C of the April 30, 2010 planning report and adoption of the Findings of Fact dated May 6, 2010. Chair Davis opened the hearing to the public for comment. There were no comments from the audience. Planning_ Commission Meeting May 6, 2010 DIR" A I -N T Page 4 10.22 Motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing at 6:24 p.m. Ayes: Davis, Adler, Grenz, Glad, Maguire, Lillehei. Nays: 0 Chair Davis asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion points were: • The proposed standards for the remaining vacant restricted vs. non- restricted lots was discussed. Mr. Kuennen carefully explained the differences in the proposed standards and stated that the PUD amendment request is only to eliminate the requirement for side loaded garages. • The monotony code standards were explained. The monotony code will limit the house plan elevations and colors that can be built next door, across the street and kitty corner from a home. This is more effective and easier to enforce when the houses will be constructed by one builder. • Confirmed that the requirement of a front porch with a minimum depth of six feet that extends across the front fagade of the home is only for the restricted lots. 10.23 Motion was made and seconded to recommend to City Council approval of the Donnelly Farm Planned Unit Development amendment as presented and adopt the Findings of Fact dated May 6, 2010. Ayes: Adler, Grenz, Glad, Maguire, Lillehei, Davis. Nays: 0 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary Dated ATTEST: ' Bart Davis, Chair Dated Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Allyn Kuennen, AICP4 _(7 It Associate Planner Date: April 30, 2010 item - No. City of Lakeville Planning Department Subject: Packet Material for the May 6, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Agenda Item: Donnelly Farm PUD Amendment — Single Family Home Design Standards. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Donnelly Farm final plat and PUD was approved by City Council on November 1, 2004. Sixty-two of the 125 single family lots within the development are platted to meet the minimum RS -3, Single Family Residential District standards which require interior lots to have a minimum width of 85 feet and corner lots to be a minimum width of 100 feet. The RS -3 standards also require interior lots to have a minimum lot area of 11,000 square feet and corner lots to have a minimum lot area of 12,500 square feet. The PUD allows 63 of the 125 single family lots to have reduced lot widths ranging from 75 to 80 feet with minor reductions in the minimum lot area requirements. These reduced lot standards were allowed on the condition that the 63 "restricted" lots include the following architectural design standards: 1. A front porch with a minimum depth of six feet that extends across the front fagade of the home. 2. A two -car side entry garage with an optional attached third car garage that may face the street. 3. Gabled and dormered roofs and brick or stone knee walls. 4. A minimum 7 foot interior side yard setback and 20 foot corner lot side yard setback. 5. Single family home styles/architecture must be approved by the Planning Director. These standards were imposed in an effort to off -set the reduction in the lot width and lot area and to promote a house plan that did not focus on a garage forward design. I Originally a single home builder was proposed to construct all the single family lots within the Donnelly Farm development; however that builder went out of business after 1 building only a few homes. Therefore, some of the restricted lots were purchased by custom home builders that designed the homes for their clients to meet the above standards. In addition, Ryland Homes which has a product line with homes that include a side entry garage purchased 21 of the restricted lots and are in the process of building homes on the last few lots they own. Ryland Homes has not shown interest in purchasing additional restricted lots. Donnelly Farm also includes several other custom builders that have preferred to buy the "non -restricted" lots indicating that the side entry garage requirement of the restricted lots is not something their clients are requesting. The remaining 36 restricted single family lots remain vacant. Jim Deanovic representing Wyatt Pudel Pointer I, LLC has indicated the current homes built on the restricted lots with side loaded garages have introduced high quality unique house plans to the development but the side loaded garages have also limited the variety of architecture on those lots as indicated on Exhibit B. The developer has also indicated the side loaded garage requirement has limited his ability to market these lots. Therefore, the developer has submitted a PUD amendment application to modify the architectural standards for the restricted lots within the Donnelly Farm development to eliminate the side entry garage requirement. The developer is requesting to amend the PUD standards as outlined in Exhibit C to allow more flexibility in the house plans on the restricted single family lots and to provide additional architectural standards on the remaining 38 unrestricted lots to insure continued diversity and interest within the neighborhood. The following exhibits are attached for your review: Exhibit A — Location and Zoning Map Exhibit B — Color photos of existing home styles Exhibit C — Proposed single family home standards Exhibit D — Findings of Fact PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has been working with the developer for several months to revise the PUD standards that would meet the spirit and intent of the original Donnelly Farm PUD. The Planning Commission's goal in requiring special standards for the restricted lots was to increase the architectural style of the homes and reduce the garage forward design to make the front of the house, not the garage, the predominant feature of the home. The homes that have been built on the restricted lots have met the standards as approved in 2004 including six foot deep front porches, stone or brick knee walls along the front of the house and side entry garages. All of these standards have been successfully integrated into the design of the structures to create attractive looking homes. However, the one element that has not worked as well as expected is the side entry garage requirement. The side entry garage requirement has actually pushed the garage farther forward making it a predominant feature of the home. I 2 The amendment as proposed by the developer would retain the six foot deep front porch and the gabled and dormered roofs and the stone or brick knee walls along the front of the home as required with the original PUD standards. In addition, the developer is proposing to include addition architecture and monotony code requirements as outlined in Exhibit C in lieu of the side entry garage requirement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the proposed amendments to the single family home standards of the Donnelly Farm PUD, as outlined in Exhibit C, reflect the spirit and intent as originally approved in 2004. The amended standards will better address the garage forward design issues, encourage architectural diversity and provide increased flexibility for the developer and builders to market the lots. Staff recommends approval of the Donnelly Farm PUD amendment to revise the single family home standards as submitted and outlined in Exhibit C. Applying these standards to all the remaining vacant single family lots will provide more variety in housing plans and a better planned neighborhood. The PUD amendment findings of fact are attached. 3 2 Exhibit B -Donnelly Farms Restricted Lots Existing Home Examples DONNELLY FARMS PUD AMENDMENT We are proposing the following amended PUD standards to the Donnelly Farms PUD for all the remaining vacant lots, not just the restricted lots. There are 74 vacant lots remaining in the project. 36 of the remaining vacant lots are defined as restricted lots by the PUD standards for the project (see attached Exhibit A). Applying standards to all the remaining vacant single family lots will provide more variety in housing plans and a better planned neighborhood. The current PUD standards have provided unique house plans in the project, but have also produced limited variety in the streetscapes due to the restrictive garage location standards and the location of the restricted lots being grouped together. The City will have a better, more cohesive project by allowing more house plan choices on all the remaining lots. The following revised PUD standards propose achieving higher quality architecture in the neighborhood with some increased flexibility. Goals of the PUD Amendment 1. Propose a variety of high quality housing in the project designed with a mixture of architectural elements and materials that meet the intent of the current PUD standards. 2. Locate house plans in the project appropriately to provide architectural diversity in the neighborhood. 3. Provide interesting and appealing streetscapes. 4. Provide sustainable neighborhoods. 5. Provide house plans that are desired by the current housing market. Proposed PUD Standards All Remaining Single Family Lots will include the following: 1. A Monotony Code — the monotony code would apply to the whole project to encourage diversity in the architecture of neighborhoods. The monotony code will limit the house plan elevations and colors that can be built next door, across the street and kitty corner from a home. These monotony controls naturally add more architectural diversity to a neighborhood and streetscape. Architectural diversity is important to the flow and feel of the neighborhood. In order for the monotony code to be most effective, more variety of house plans should be encouraged on all lots and not be limited to just the restricted lots. EXHIBIT C 2. The house plans will include a combination of the following architectural features. a. Porches b. Railings c. Shutters d. Columns e. Brick or stone knee walls f. Gabled, hip and dormered roofs g. Variety of siding types, widths and colors h. Shakes L Brackets j. Architectural garage doors with windows k. Vinyl soffit and fascia I. Window cornices m. Multi - Colored elevations 3. If a front loaded garage is proposed, the front eave of the garage will not extend more than 8 feet in front of the eave of the front stoop or porch. Architectural garage doors with windows will be required for all front loaded garages. 4. If a two -car side entry garage is proposed the optional third car garage may face the street. 5. The developer/builder will provide the City an updated project matrix with each building permit illustrating the house plan, elevation, and colors built in the project to date on the remaining 74 lots subject to these standards to illustrate how the monotony code is being enforced. 6. All house plans for the remaining lots will need to be approved by the Planning Department as previously required for all building permits within the Donnelly Farm PUD. In addition to the standards listed above, fifty -percent of the remaining 74 lots will be built with house plans that include the following elements (see attached Exhibits B, C and D for example home styles): a. A front porch with a minimum depth of six feet that extends across the front facade of the home b. Brick or stone knee walls on the front of the garage. c. Brick or stone pillars incorporated into the columns of the porch. d. If the porch has no railing, then the stone or brick knee walls would have to be continued along the side and rear walls of the porch. e. If a front loaded garage is proposed the front eave of the garage will not extend more than 7 feet in front of the eave of the front porch. Architectural garage doors with windows will be required for all front loaded garages. 2 Setbacks for the 36 restricted lots will be maintained as follows: a. The restricted lots listed below will be allowed to have a minimum 7 foot interior side yard setback and 20 foot corner lot side yard setback consistent with the original approved PUD standards. Lot Block 2-12 2- Total Plans 3 -1-2 9-11,19-23 4 1-5 5 2,7-11 6 7-9,11-13 7 36 Total Lots 3 In summary, the proposed amendment would eliminate the side entry garage requirement for the restricted PUD lots and in return the home builder would comply with the previously listed requirements. Reasons for K Hovnanian Homes 1. The monotony code is most effective and easiest to enforce when all the house plans for the project are approved up front and are built by one builder. We have that unique opportunity with K Hovnanian to approve all the house plans up front with this builder for the whole project. 2. The builder is proposing a wide variety of high quality designed house plans that the market wants: 3 House Plan # of elevations # of colors Total Plans 1 Auburn 3 12 36 2 Bartlett 3 12 36 3 Cascade 3 12 136 4 Dinham 3 12 36 5 Everett 3 12 36 6 Fremont 3 12 36 7 Graham 3 12 36 8 Harriet 13 12 36 8 24 96 288 3 3. The house plans include combinations of the following architectural elements a. Porches b. Railings c. Shutters d. Columns e. Brick or stone knee walls f. Gabled, Hip and dormered roofs g. Variety of siding widths and colors h. Shakes i. Brackets j. 8 ft Architectural garage doors with windows k. Vinyl soffit and fascia and I. Window cornices m. Multi- Colored Plans 4. The builder has home plans that meet the proposed PUD amendment standards. 4 ' • 125 Total Single Family lots 16 52 Lots Sold/built r• 0 ! f •;fi e 73 0 • ©, ©' 5 = / 1 : 1 • Qo 101, 5 S TOPMWATFR(61 '�`- _ ... •.•... ... _+>+.o.Wn.r1Y.,_: p -. q^ ST" 04 4,3 .... .. ©. �r'd.•'1O w r . Q ' . 1 13 r. Q'' r 2 z... y 4 3 e2 G 2 t 2 t2 bs - © � Ac 14 r• 3 11 ri © 22 •. .1 ST(JpA!N'A Y[p .A}TM 4 10 i g 4 4 20 , 01R 1- 0 Q W ""tifYww sToawwA-[c 1 II 13 ." • 19 4f !,1 S'O'I d 8 e.gFa �, 5 il 9 A` 1 18 2 1 -. 38 �="'��I22 ; 6 7 8, 13 15dt y • © 33 <2 ,. 32 CI tl �i .-. , L ♦ _t32 r " WE2AND � !• 0 Sold �r . _--r , `�.,,� u �4 Oo 4 13 t1 i' tr 9 P. ©fir; 7 Sold fl- 0 0 •° Q ` Q i8 15 Q 21 12 23 24 25 26 27 Q /L .!^. ►, 24 # Sold V1 23 `v. - i ,.�i w • rd >w,n ,• a �• 21 1 0 4 20 : ! Ifs G " . !r rr�". � ` S o I d 19 1'' �? Q 1, �w 3�6 13 CL .aT.:55 23 Remaining lots at+y is i6 21 22 14 •• i 23 • (� 1 m ORestricted Lot 13 t 1 �.. 2/ rr sTaa.wAFR _ "% 25 26 IhiN 2 5 ., li Lot - 12 7m M 11 !!!`` „.. r� Donnelly 4 .u.`.. -'.aa"\• •sT auAw,'Ta 9 �).- B ?6 j� •Addition 73 • remainingts aAsn 27 8 ai�a� 2a 77 Lots & Blocks. Exhibit B Examples of Home Elevations that could be built under the proposed Donnelly Farms PUD standards *plans are noted that would meet condition B (50%) of the PUD standards * floor plan shown without porch but can be added as illustrated floor plan shown without porch but can be added as illustrated LR[�K[l/S fANK,v Room 4f 7C -AR 3-.ARAC➢/ roR� * floor plan shown without porch but can be added as illustrated tI1Ml� Exhibit C Examples of Home Elevations that would comply with Condition B (50% of remaining lots) of the proposed Donnelly Farms PUD Standards *additional features required noted on plans ., �, tAt1pAlT •j r\ IA�1At •LlpflU MA � bri6 UAL - 3 3CAN WAtt OtN � I d l Ot[ '•�' KItCM1M L`o SPl AKFAjf }AMI. • NU,W V f 71 r 1 CAP GARAGE IOIt� i. t * brick or stone pillars would be incorporated into the columns of the porch Exhibit C-2 Examples of Home Elevations that comply with Condition B (50% of lots) on so MWM MMW *brick or stone pillars would be incorporated into the columns of the porch a 4k. *S apt ?AST F.W11 ROOM KIVC4EN Ir TANDIV 6"A" kanv SCAR OARAOR Exhibit D Example of how the front cave of the garage is measured from the front cave of the porch A. Homes complying with condition B (50%) of the PUD Standards will have garages that will not extend more than 7 feet in front of the cave of the front porch measured from the front roof cave of the porch to the front roof cave of the garage. B. Homes on the remaining lots will have garages that will not extend more than 8 feet in front of the cave of the front porch/stoop measured from the front roof cave of the porch to the front roof cave of the garage. �, M�AKfAfT - .. ,• �a� . ger � � :: w M Y • • • Z � � i Y . N OW ftn" I CAA GAAAGF P, • J: r Y w w a ............. r �„ ul r iT rD.O. pow," Front roof eave of porch/stoop c an � a c E c Front roof eave of garage