Laserfiche WebLink
■ Board of County Commissioners Consideration <br />Pursuant to section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board is to consider the appropriateness of the proprised <br />modification based on the PD plan and suitability for that area. The Board may approve, approve <br />with conditions, or deny the request for the modification. The county may attach conditions and <br />safeguards necessary to mitigate the impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the <br />surrounding area. <br />The applicant is requesting a reduction in the setbacks currently approved for the single-family lets. <br />The number of lots, Iot size, and lot width will remain the same. As approved, the setbacks for the <br />single-family area are consistent with RM -8 single-family district criteria. The applicant is <br />requesting to reduce the frontyard setback from 25' to 20', the sideyard setback from 10' to 7.5', and <br />the rearyard setback on interior lots from 25' to 15'. <br />WAIVERS REQUESTED <br />Single -Family Setback Requirements <br />RM4 Original Requested <br />Front 25' 25' <br />Side 10' 10' <br />Rear (perimeter) 25' 25' 25' <br />Rear (interior) 25 <br />' 25' <br />Max. Bldg. Height 35' 35' 35' <br />Pools, Decks, Patios <br />Lot Size 71000 69000 16,000 <br />Lot Width 70' 58' 1 58' <br />Note: ®figures are the requested changes from the ori <br />ginal approval. <br />The applicant is requesting these changes to the dimensional criteria in response to a request fro n <br />home builders. The builders are requesting the ability to construct larger homes an these lots chart <br />originally anticipated. <br />Based an the existing land use and zoning pattern <br />within the area, staff anticipates that the entire aztla <br />to the south will develop with medical uses, and that the area abutting the proposed single familly <br />subdivision will develop as either attached single-family or as multi -story, multi -family. The PID <br />compatibility standards in LDR section 915.16 do not require buffers when a residentia l <br />development is located adjacent to an Mw or M-2 designated property. All of the property north of <br />3I" Street is designated M-1. Thus, the PD ordinance requires no buffers. In addition, it is staff; <br />opinion that the proposed single-family development will likely be the least intensely developed <br />parcel in the immediate area, which is another reason why staff has recommended that no perimete <br />buffers be required. <br />December 12, 2040 <br />m <br />r <br />