Laserfiche WebLink
3. The lot is shown with standard house pad dimension of 50' x 66'. <br />4. That a 25' front yard setback would eliminate the encroachment into the setback area. <br />Motion by Commissioner VanScoy, seconded by Commissioner Surma, to close the public <br />hearing. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners VanScoy, Surma, Anderson, <br />Brauer, and Nosan. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br />Chairperson Bauer closed the public hearing closed at 7:55 p.m. <br />Commission Business <br />Motion by Commissioner VanScoy, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt Resolutions <br /># 16-12-215 approving the Favorable Findings of Fact and # 16-12-216 granting a variance to <br />allow a cul-de-sac length in excess of 600 feet to an approximate length of 1,300 feet. <br />Further discussion <br />City Planner Anderson recommended the hydrant flushing concern be added as a condition to the <br />Preliminary Plat. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners VanScoy, Anderson, Brauer, <br />Nosan, and Surma. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br />Commissioner Brauer recommended the applicant pursue a 25' front yard setback versus the <br />proposed variance plan for Lot 2. <br />Mr. Dilbanski supported the front yard setback and stated he would work with staff on this <br />matter. <br />Chairperson Bauer questioned if the EPB's request for denial of the lot depth variance was based <br />on a previous request made to the City. <br />City Planner Anderson reported this was the case and noted the EPB had no concerns with this <br />individual lot. Staff believed there were enough differences between the previous request and <br />the one before the Commission this evening to justify approval. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill asked if the Commission was comfortable moving <br />this variance forward, given the fact another request was denied, or if a front yard variance <br />should be pursued. <br />Commissioner VanScoy respected the work on the EPB, however, he understood the Planning <br />Commission had to consider a specific land use request on a case by case basis. He believed if <br />Planning Commission/December 1, 2016 <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />