10/14/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Lot Split Plat 6236/6250 Stearns Itoad: The proposal is to split Permanent Parcel Number 234-21-021 (approximately 1.90 acres and known as 6250 Stearns Road) into two parcels. The location of the property is on the west side of Stearns Road immediately north of Hastings Drive. There are two existing houses on the property (6236 6250 Stearns Road). The proposed lot line will split the property so that each house is on a separate lot. Zoning is B Residence, Single. The proposed lots will conform to the frontage, depth and area requirements of the zoning code. A variance will be needed for the width of the side yard. Chairman Koeth pointed out there will not be a variance needed for the width of the side yard. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Michael Gareau, Sr. came forward and indicated he represents the Mary Gilchrist Trust. Mr. Brian Priebe, the proposed property owner, also came forward. Mr. Gareau said a condition of the sale is that the property be split. He said the proposal will make the lots more conforming. He said there was a glitch with a variance but that has been taken care of and now everything is in compliance with code with respect to the size of the lots, frontage, etc. I,aw Deuartment Comments NIr. Koeth asked Mr. O'Malley to explain why a variance is no longer needed. Mr. O'Malley referred to Section 1101.07 of the code. He said he would compare this to another lot split they previously reviewed, in which the way the lot lines were going to be drawn on existing property, it would create non-conformities with the code. The lots themselves complied. He said this is the case here. The code compels the Planning Commission to refer to the Board of Zoning Appeals if the lot is substandard. He said one thing to evaluate is compliance with the zoning code and planning principles. He said according to the Building Commissioner here is a situation where the lot line would be drawn where the driveway is. The zoning code contemplates a 15-foot side yard between the building, which is on lot "A." Here, the lot line is going to bisect that driveway so it would create a non-conformity to the code and potentially cause a dilemma. However, as with the last lot split before the board, there are any number of ways to remedy this issue. This drive could be relocated and an easement could be supplied. The Planning Commission needs to recognize the planning principles or other zoning code issues that are raised and could be created by the establishment of these lots. Board Member Questions and Comments Mr. Yager asked for clarification on the ingress/egress easement reflected in the plans. Mr. Priebe said the engineering departinent asked them to have several easements written or re-written with the creation of the two lots. He said there was a lot of conversation between the engineering department and the company that did the drawings. He said there are a number of ways they can run the driveway. He reviewed a couple of options. Mrs. Hoff-Smith asked if there is a garage on lot "A." Mr. Priebe indicated there is no garage. Mr. Gareau said it is non-conforming and was not required to have a garage. Mr. Durbin said they asked for an easement because if the driveway there is the ingress and egress to the house, and there is no easement, the person on the south would have every right to put a post right at the corner of the property line, thus blocking the driveway. Mr. Gareau said they cannot subject a property, if there is one owner, to an easement. He said if the owner sold it, he would have to grant an easement to the person he sold it to if they did not have any way of getting in and out. Mr. Priebe asked who he would talk to about the driveway. Mr. Durbin indicated the engineering department would require a driveway permit. There was discussion about the plat and a culvert. Mr. Priebe and Mr. Gareau reviewed the plan with Mr. Durbin. Mr. Koeth asked for questions from the audience. There were none. R. Koeth made a motion to approve the lot split for 6236/6250 5tearns Road with the qualification that the drive be put in on the north side of the house on parcel "A." The motion was seconded by S. Hoff-Smith and unanamously approved. MOTION CARREED. 4