Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 14, 2022 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br />because a street is needed and therefore supports that request. He stated that he does believe the <br />side yard setback should be met, unless flexibility was provided to the other recent development <br />request the City approved. <br /> <br />The Community Development Director reviewed the required front, rear, and side yard setbacks. <br />She stated that the other development request asked for a reduced front yard setback but met all <br />other setback requirements. She noted that this request does meet the required side yard <br />setbacks. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell asked how the development of the roadway would result in any <br />adjustments. <br /> <br />The Community Development Director replied that the applicant would create a new street to <br />support the units in the development which would gain access from Edgerton. She stated that the <br />roadway would be built to City standards. <br /> <br />Commissioner Quarles asked the slope of the roadway. <br /> <br />The Community Development Director replied that the slope would be to eight percent. <br /> <br />Commissioner Quarles asked the height of the retaining wall. <br /> <br />Sean Keatts, Cara Builders, replied that the height is not yet known for the retaining wall. <br /> <br />Chair Kwapick welcomed any members of the public to provide input. <br /> <br />Justin Parda, 2655 Edgerton, stated that R-1 requires a maximum of 35 percent impervious <br />without wetland area and asked if that is met. <br /> <br />The Community Development Director confirmed that as proposed each lot would meet <br />impervious standards. She explained how that is calculated. <br /> <br />Mr. Parda stated that the variance is requested for six of the eight lots to have lots under 10,000 <br />square feet with a few of those under 8,000 square feet. He stated that the layout would make it <br />impossible to meet the rear setback. He stated that Schletty Drive is almost identical but all of <br />those lots meet the lot size requirements. He stated that the development could meet the lot size <br />requirements by removing one lot. He believed there would be a market value impact to <br />everyone already existing in the neighborhood if this is constructed. He recognized that it would <br />be difficult to build on this lot and believed that more than one survey should be completed. He <br />stated that he purchase his home 12 years ago, the developer that built his development proposed <br />to build three homes on this property and the City denied the request. He noted that the request <br />is now for eight homes. He noted that the original issue was related to Edgerton Street access <br />and that will remain as an issue. He stated that he has no problem with someone developing the