Laserfiche WebLink
This proposal is in two parts. The lot split involves splitting a parcel fronting Stearns Road into <br />two parcels. The existing parcel does not conform to the City's Zoning Code for frontage <br />requirements in that it is short of the 70 foot requirement by 6 inches. The lot split would run <br />parallel to Stearns Road; therefore, the lot proposed to be created would also not meet zoning <br />frontage requirements. The proposed lot would, however, conform to depth and area <br />requirements. The second part of the proposal is to combine the remainder parcel with the <br />abutting consolidation parcel which has frontage on Stearns Road. The consolidated parcel will <br />conform to all City zoning requirements. <br />Ms. Wenger has no objection to the approval of the lot split and consolidation request. <br />Mr. Conway reported there is no report from Building Department. Mr. Durbin is concerned <br />about the cul-de-sac being proposed for the new subdivision. It does not conform to the <br />maximum length of the subdivision regulations. Mr. Durbin also said the two lots to the north <br />are substandard 69.57 and 61.1, they are grandfathered in. <br />Mr. O'Malley said the Commission is not permitted to grant the lot split to create a substandard <br />lot. It must be presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. He felt the City <br />Engineer wanted to make the Commission aware that if the lot split proceeded as presented, then <br />the developer would appear to be closing the door to build a horseshoe style subdivision with <br />only one access in with a lengthy cul-de-sac., <br />Mr. Spalding advised the applicant if he wanted to reconsider this proposal until such time until <br />he can address this with the engineer. The applicant said they submitted preliminary <br />development plans and is addressing comments received from.engineering. <br />The applicant said the cul-de-sac will be longer thanthe 600' requirement and will need a <br />variance. They are proposing 12 residential lots which will be approximately 650'. <br />Mr. Lasko informed the applicant that tliere is a risk that the variance will not be granted. Even <br />though there is a chance that the variance would not be granted, the developer would still move <br />forward, however, with a shorter cul-de-sac. ' <br />Chris Howard, Bramhall Engineering and Surveying came forward and said the owner <br />requesting that the frontage along Sterns Road be split off. Mr. Spalding reviewed that there is <br />no home on the .4299 acres and unoccupied. This would need to be referred to the Board of <br />Zoning Appeals for a 6" variance. <br />Mr. Durbin informed the Chairman that S/L's 2 and 3 are established lots. <br />Mr. Spalding moved to approve this proposal upon the Board of Zoning Appeals approval of <br />granting a variance with the further restriction that the plats be withheld until the Board of <br />Zoning Appeals approval is final. Mr. Lasko seconded, which was unanimously approved. <br />6 <br />