Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />2. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: <br />The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD Amendment to revise the building setbacks for the <br />50-foot wide single family lots on the northern portion of the development. There are 51 lots <br />approved in the area with the preliminary plat, the total number of lots will not change. The <br />approved and proposed setbacks are in the table below: <br />50 foot Wide <br />50 foot Wide <br />Lots <br />Lots <br />Approved <br />Proposed <br />Front Setback (min) <br />25 Ft <br />25 Ft <br />Front Setback (min) <br />25 Ft <br />20 Ft <br />for side of the home <br />on corner lots <br />Side Setback min <br />7.5 Ft <br />5 Ft <br />Rear Setback min <br />30 Ft <br />25 Ft <br />3. BACKGROUND: <br />The applicant has approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a <br />residential development. The property totals 216.6 acres. The property includes wetlands and <br />floodplain for a total buildable acreage of 146.2 acres. The development was approved to include <br />324 single family residential lots. <br />The applicant received PUD flexibility on the following during the PUD General Plan approval <br />in 2017: <br />• Flexibility to allow various lot sized with a minimum lot size of 5,850 square feet, where <br />10,400 square feet is required. <br />• Flexibility to allow various lot width with a minimum lot width of 45 feet, were 80 feet is <br />required by ordinance. <br />• Flexibility to allow a minimum front setback of 20 feet (for side loaded garages), where 30 <br />feet is required. <br />• Flexibility to allow a minimum rear setback of 25 feet, where 30 feet is required. <br />• Flexibility to allow a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, where 10 feet is required. <br />• Flexibility to allow a maximum impervious coverage of a lot to be 55% , where 50% is <br />required. <br />• Flexibility to allow a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet, where 60 feet is required. <br />In exchange for this flexibility, the developer has: <br />• Designed a more sensitive proposal, with less density, than would have been the case with the <br />use of the standard R-3 zoning district. <br />