Laserfiche WebLink
Decatur City Plan Commission <br /> January 2, 1992 <br /> Page Six <br /> by 45� the minimum standards for the existing R-2 <br /> classification. The proposed structure would be <br /> approximately 55 feet from the residence to the west and 100 <br /> feet from he existing residence to the south. Further, we <br /> note that in accordance with existing zoning regulations, <br /> three single family dwellings could be constructed on this � <br /> tract. . <br /> Lastly, we note that a Planned Unit Development offers land <br /> use control and assurance of specific development in terms <br /> of the number of units, location of buildings, vehicular <br /> access, and landscape d�sign. Staff recognizes these <br /> controls as a positive factor for the proposed development <br /> and the existing neighborhood. <br /> In view of the data presented, staff recommends approval of <br /> the petition with the following stipulations: (1) that <br /> development occur in accordance with petitioner's site plan <br /> and. building elevations, (2) that final landscape plans be <br /> subject to approval by the Department of Community <br /> Development, and (3) that chimneys for the fireplaces be <br /> bricked and that brick work on the front of the proposed <br /> building be subject to approval by the Department of <br /> Community Development. <br /> Mrs. Coulter questioned if this lot is more conducive to the <br /> proposed development due to its location. Mr. McQueen <br /> stated that the location is a factor; this lot is viewed <br /> differently than the lots located within the subdivision as <br /> it is located on the corner and on roads with more traffic. <br /> Mr. May questioned if the back of the project would be <br /> landscaped. Mr. Wolfer stated that there are trees in place <br /> already and the storm water retention area will be located <br /> on the back of the property. <br /> Mr. Kaptain questioned if the detention area would be <br /> strictly for the lot itself. Mr. Wolfer stated that it <br /> would be; the existing culvert would not be dammed or <br /> altered. The detention pond would be two to two and one <br /> half feet deep at the deepest point. . <br /> Mr. Hunt stated his concern with certain stipulations of the <br /> covenant. He stated that if the proposed planned unit <br /> development meets the criteria as adopted without objection <br /> then the proposal should be granted. <br /> It was moved and seconded (Hunt/Perkins) and approved that <br />