Laserfiche WebLink
I Case #4 <br /> <br />I Case #5 Request <br /> LTR Land Development, LLC <br /> <br />i ,Presentation <br /> Principal Planner Trudgeon indicated there were two requests <br />I Lake; one to rezone the property and the second for <br /> like to review both cases at the same time, adding these <br /> <br />I Commissioner Brauer clarified that as Principal <br /> about road size, setbacks, etc. that he would be talking <br /> had been proposed previoUsly. <br />I Principal Planner Trudgeon indicated wouldl <br /> LLC has applied for a preliminary <br />Imurak property south of Sunwo~d~ <br />the submitted preliminary pla~ <br />that the land is currently vacant~'ar <br /> I develop 79 single family lots and 36 <br /> units. He stated this p[oposal lowers <br /> units from 91 to <br /> He intimated th <br /> ' the lots ~ ?~igg r <br /> <br /> make this.a puk ff~.~ I. <br />I ~ street <br /> <br />Request to Rezone Property from R-1 Single Family Residential to <br />Unit Development; The Village of Sunfish Lake; Case of <br />Development, LLC .. <br /> <br />for Preliminary Plat Review of Village of <br /> <br /> the <br /> the cottages <br /> <br /> that fihe kink <br /> <br />siz~ <br /> <br />He explained <br /> to Planned Unit <br /> Street <br /> <br />!se of <br /> <br /> Village of Sunfish <br />review.. 'He Stated he would <br /> <br /> and talked <br />it is, not What <br /> <br /> )pment, <br /> (PUD) for the <br /> He indicated <br /> units on acres. He indicated <br /> appliCant is proposing to <br /> -for a total of 115 housing <br /> and lowers the single-family <br /> generally same, with 'cottages on the east. <br />fi:om private to public and back to private, and <br /> <br />fi'om the road. <br /> <br /> Commission had directed the developer to <br />However the Council held a work session on January 21 and said <br /> withoUt the severturn. He reViewed the deViations fi:om City Code <br /> considered as part of the PUD request· These are: <br /> single.fam/ly!ots' - <br /> for urban single family Iots. He noted current regulations require <br /> feet wide, and the proPOsed.' deVelopment shows, lot widths as <br /> <br /> at lea. <br /> as 52 feet. <br /> tg setbacks. He noted the rear yard setback is substantiallY-lower than <br /> as small as 15 feet versus the 30 feet required by ordinance. He also noted <br /> the side yard setbacks.might be as small as t 0 feet, while ordinance requires 30 <br /> He advised that some lots would meet the required setbacks, while some deviate <br />fi:om the requirements. He also pointed out that while the. setbacks from a private <br />street are required to be 25 feet, the proposed lots range fi:om t7-20 feet as measured <br /> <br />Planning Commission/February 6, 2003 <br /> Page 7 of 26 <br /> <br />-171- <br /> <br /> <br />