HomeMy WebLinkAboutSE202000009 Correspondence 2020-10-19 (2)R C H I i E C i 5
Response to Staff Comments:
To: Tori Kanellopoulos - Senior Planner
From: Rush Otis, Habitat for Humanity and Whitney McDermott, BRW Architects
Division: Planning Services
Date Received : September 18, 2020
Subject: Southwood — Variation Request #1 (Special Exception) for ZMA201800003
Date of Response Letter: October 13, 2020
Comments on the Garage Setback Request:
1. Provide additional information in the narrative for the justification and design need for
this request for Blocks 5-8.
RESPONSE: See the narrative for additional information and see attachment 2B for a diagram
of front -load garage scenarios.
2. The revised setback/regulation table for Block 9 does not include the requirement that
'all garage access must be side -loaded or relegated to the rear of the building.
RESPONSE: See attachment 4, this note as been clarified and added to the table for Block 9.
3. Include arrows on the concept map that point to Blocks 6 and 7 as well.
RESPONSE: See attachment 2A, the map has been clarified with a legend.
4. Provide a conceptual design for staff analysis for the potential units in these Blocks that
would have these types of garages. See the Brookhill example below for the type of
design that could be submitted for review. Scenarios should be provided for both single family
attached and detached units. It would also be helpful to see a conceptual design
for how lots would be laid out.
RESPONSE: See attachment 213 for a diagrammatic conceptual design which gives examples
of different garage scenarios in blocks 3 — 8.
Comments on the Rear Setback Request:
1. Provide clarification on the request. The narrative indicates the request is for Blocks 6, 7,
and 8, however the modified setback table shows Blocks 6-9 included. Additionally, the
arrows on the map point to Blocks 7 and 8 only.
a. A distinguishing note could be added to the Rear Setback line for Blocks 6-9, to
show Block 9 still has a 5' minimum setback, if that is the intent.
RESPONSE: See attachment 4, the suggested distinguishing note has been added. It is
intended that rear setback request of "no min." applies to blocks 6, 7, and 8. Additionally, see
attachment 3A, which has been clarified with a legend.
2. Provide more information on the 0' minimum rear setback for Block 8. Would all units
have the trail buffer as their rear yard? Or would there be any other units or structures in
between? The concern is having two units in Block 8 (one in front of the other) with a 0'
rear setback.
RESPONSE: See attachment 3B. Lots in the requested blocks are intended to back to the
greenspace or trail buffer. It is intended that frontage and building code regulations will
supersede rear setback regulations if separate units stack in the manner as noted in the
comment. If this were to occur, the buildings would be required to front on an amenity or access
road which would re -orient "rear'. However, as shown in attachment 3B, the conceptual and
intended lot layout places single lots which front along a framework street and back up to the
green space and trail buffer.
3. An exhibit for the proposed units/layout in these Blocks (or at least Block 8) would assist
with review as well.
RESPONSE: See attachment 3A.
4. Recommend only including the original setback/regulation table once in the submittal,
and to include two red arrows on the table for both garage setbacks and rear setbacks.
The two separate maps should remain.
RESPONSE: Noted.
2