maximum allowed density of 4 units. These units could be flats or two-story units that touch the <br />ground beyond the parking. The diagram illustrates a simpler rowhouse configuration that can <br />be achieved parallel to the street with 3 units and 3 surface parking spaces located in the back <br />of the property. <br />Draft Code considerations <br />The setback requirement as it is written translates to a building facade that must adhere <br />to at least 60% of the build -to line (setback). This line is curved in this instance, adding <br />unnecessary complication to the building form. The diagram illustrates a stepped <br />solution that meets the intent but would require flexibility to the building fagade <br />standard. For further discussion and a proposed modification to this code, see <br />discussion of setbacks below. <br />• Setbacks, parking requirements, and site requirements all seem reasonable when <br />applied to this site. <br />• This would be a smaller scale development but based on our experience could be a <br />viable infill development. <br />2. Site Testing I Medium Site <br />This is a 13,873 SF site located in COR -MU with River Road frontage and frontage along a side <br />street. We believe the most efficient and most likely housing solution on this site is a rectangular <br />footprint, approximately 3,300 SF per floor with 4 units per floor. At 3 floors this could be served <br />by a single stair located in the center of the building. The units at the top floor could have an <br />internal upper floor with internal stairs to provide larger units at this level. An alternative is 4 full <br />floors of housing, elevator served, and requiring two exit stairs. The full 4 floor version with a <br />hallway could achieve a higher unit count per floor and a higher overall density but comes at the <br />cost of a more complex building and would require more on-site parking. Some ground floor <br />commercial is possible in this configuration and is generally more viable if it is not too deep. In <br />this configuration one or two 1000 SF tenant spaces along River Road may be desirable. <br />Draft Code Considerations <br />• Interior side yard setbacks abutting R-1 at 10 feet are larger than necessary if the <br />proposed use is parking. Larger setbacks in these situations can create planting zones <br />that are difficult to manage and are less desirable than a more compact screened zone. <br />• Ability to adjust the front yard setback along the side street would be important on this <br />side street to accommodate double loaded parking on the site. This site is 5 feet too <br />narrow to meet the 60 foot depth for double loaded parking standards. <br />The setback requirement as it is written translates to a building facade that must adhere <br />to at least 80% of the build -to line (setback). This line is angled in this instance, adding <br />unnecessary complication to the building form. For further discussion and a proposed <br />modification to the draft code, see below. <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Page 15 of 21 <br />