Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CASE # A. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br />REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM <br />LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT IN THE E-l EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT; <br />CASE OF BEN MINKS <br />By: Breanne Daines, Associate Planner <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Ben Minks has made an application for a variance to subdivide an existing lot that will result in <br />the new lot created not meeting the minimum lot width requirement in the E-1 Empoyment <br />District. City Code defines lot width as the measurement of the property line abutting the street. <br />No part of the new lot created would have direct access to a public road. The property is located <br />generally on the southeast corner of Sunfish Lake Court and Sunfish Lake Boulevard. The <br />following items are included for your information: <br /> <br />a) Site location map <br />b) Site Plan <br />c) Proposed fmdings of fact <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />Ben Minks has recently submitted an application for a minor subdivision and variance to allow <br />the back (east) portion of his lot to be separated from Lot 1, Block 1, Minks Business Park. The <br />lot would have no frontage on a road, and would gain access only through an ingress/egress <br />easement across his current lot. <br /> <br />According to City Code, all lots in the Employment District must have a minimum of 200 feet of <br />frontage along a public street to be considered a conforming lot. Lot width is defmed as the <br />measurement of the property line adjacent to the public road. The Subdivision standards in City <br />Code state that no permit shall be issued for the erection of a building unless the parcel of land <br />abuts a public street. Subdivision design standards also state that all lots created shall have the <br />minimum frontage required on a public road. <br /> <br />Last summer, Ben Minks combined two lots to make one, buildable lot on the property located at <br />14015 Sunfish Lake Boulevard. At this time, the Plarming Commission discussed his proposition <br />to build two buildings on the site. The applicant made some minor changes to the plat at the <br />request of the Planning Commission, and sought approval of a revised plan that showed an <br />expansion of the existing building as opposed to the original concept to eventually construct two <br />buildings. The Plamung Commission expressed concerns over the proposed plan at that time, <br />mentioning that the applicant may be limited in future utilization of the eastern portion of the <br />property. The applicant indicated that his intent was to expand, and the Planning Commission <br />approved the plan. <br /> <br />1 1 <br />