Laserfiche WebLink
Special Planning Commission <br />Meeting Date: 02/11/2021 <br />By: Tim Gladhill, Community Development <br />Information <br />Title: <br />Review Concept Plan for Graw Addition (Lot Split); Case of Gail Graw <br />5. 1. <br />Purpose/Background: <br />The purpose of this case is to seek high level policy direction on a request for a lot split near Central Park. The <br />Property Owner desires feedback before investing in engineering and surveying to complete a potential lot split. <br />The site is located in the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District. Minimum lot size in said district is 2.5 acres <br />(with 200 feet of lot frontage). The Property is 2.56 acres and approximately 260 feet wide. The resulting lot split <br />would create 2 lots of 1.28 acres each approximately 130 feet wide. <br />Notification: <br />Notification is not required. <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />The City has a number of older, rural residential subdivisions with 1 acre lots, so this request is not unique from a <br />citywide perspective. However, under current standards, this lot split would not be permitted or would require a <br />variance. The surrounding neighborhood is generally at 2.5 acre lots, so this lot split would be visually noticeable. <br />The Owner still proposes to service via private well and septic. Both lots must account for a primary and backup <br />septic location. <br />When considering a Variance, the Planning Commission should consider the following: <br />1. Is the proposal in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance? <br />2. Is there a practical difficulty in complying with the ordinance? <br />1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning <br />ordinance <br />2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner <br />3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality <br />3. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties <br />As a sidebar, circa 2006, the City completed the Central Rural Reserve Study. Said study looked at the <br />redevelopment potential of this area, albeit with municipal water and sanitary sewer extensions. The study helped <br />informed the policy decision to not support infill development or redevelopment of this area. <br />Funding Source: <br />The case is currently being handled as part of normal Staff duties. If the proposal moves forward, all costs <br />associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Applicant. <br />Recommendation: <br />Staff desires broad policy direction from the Planning Commission before formulating a recommendation. <br />Action: <br />Based on discussion. <br />Our Mission: To work together to responsibly grow our community, and to provide quality, cost-effective, and efficient government <br />services <br />