Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2015 08 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2015 Page 5 of 17 Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Russell says this reminds me of the Spruce property discussed a few years ago. We had a choice between a consolidated larger lot and two smaller lots or two smaller buildings. The general view, and I continue to have it, is that it is to the benefit of this neighborhood to allow for smaller footprints, smaller homes, not collectively but individually. I think it adds to the diversity. I understand the question about variance in lot size, but I do note that 11 of the 22 are within 10% of that average. I would argue that is not a particularly diverse range with the exception of couple of some really large lots. I am supportive. I think the rationale of smaller lots in that area makes a lot of sense to me. Rice says I support the request and reason is I really think this is consistent with what is in that neighborhood. If we look at the other lots that are a part of the study, I think this new lot being created is pretty much in line with many of the other parcels there. I think the request is a reasonable one and it is consistent with what is there. I support it. O'Connell is in support for the reasons stated with the consistency of the neighborhood. I recognize the concern about keeping the larger lot, but we are looking at larger homes versus more compact homes on two lots. I think it is with the flavor of this neighborhood. I am in favor. Brauneis says I can wish that the economics were such that the whole lot could stay the same size in perpetuity, but I think the reality of it that the owner has the right to at least request this. I do also appreciate that having two lots does limit the size of the single structure that could be on the property going forward. I am in su Moline says this was an interesting one end, I the outcome that this approval gets is one that I support. Pritchard is in support. I f,, ,e chars nei. •od along Lafarge. Keeping the existing building is important . - comm, since there seems to be some value. It is consistent with the r ' that neig rhood. Motion made by Rus call vote. Name Chris Pritchard on N • 1, Series 2015, seconded by Moline. Roll Jeff Moline Ann O'Connell Cary Tengler Steve Brauneis Vote Ye Ye Yes N/A Yes Scott Russell Yes Tom Rice Yes Motion passed /failed: Pass Motion passes 6 -0. 10101 Dillon Road — Preliminary Plat, Resolution 22, Series 2015: A resolution recommending approval of a request for a preliminary subdivision plat of approximately 33.12 acres into one 30.11 acre lot (Lot 1), and one 3.01 acre tract (Tract A). • Applicant: Etkin Johnson • Representative: Rickard Lopez, special trustee • Owner: Hoyle Family • Case Manager: Sean McCartney, Principal Planner Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: 7