1982_1108_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

M c 3 November 1982 PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 1407-82 APPLICANT: Olive Bailey C CATION: Northwest corner of County Road B and Fulham ACTION REQUESTED: Division of a Lot PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: If you will refer to the copy of the portion of, the section map that covers is area of the city, you will notice that the property in question i8 the easterly 85 feet of Lots 9 and 10, between St. Stephens 'Street and Fulham Street, north of County Road B. This 85 feet was split off some gears ago and a home was constructed on the northerly portion of this 85 foot aide lot. Attached is a copy of the air photo of this area of City with the lot lines drawn on showing this r el a tion sh;lp . Lot g, you will notice, was originally platted at 129 feet. This lot line was changed so as to produce a 100 foot lot on the north side of Lot g, with the remaining 29 feet being attached to the corner lot (northeast corner of St. Stephens and County Road B) . This property is now owned by the Evers family who recently split off the other lots. This corner lot remaining is now 158 feet by 185 feet, 2, Mary Lou Evers has contacted the staff since the proposal to split off the Bailey property, and indicates that she now washes tl divide the remainder of her lot as well. This will likely result in an east -west lot split, leaving a lot for their existing dome and producing a new buildable lot on the corner. It appears that this corner lot might have approximately 83 to 85 feet as well. Mrs. Evers indicated that she did not object to the Bailey's proposal, if she can divide her lot as well. 3. The lot area of the property in-question would be 85 feet by 129 feet which equals 10, 965 square feet. The normal lot standard for corner lots is 100 feet-of frontage, and 12F500 square feet of land, Most of the lots in the area are, of course, larger than the lots proposed. One block west there i s a coaxer lot of go by 129 feet. Further north on St. Croix, there 'are lots 70 feet, 75 feet,, and 136 feet It seems that the alternative here is to simply leave all the lots as they area, with substantial unuseable space, or approve the lot divisions + approxi.ma.t 'ely as proposed 4e 'though this area of the City was .initially developed with substantially larger lots than the standard required, over the years landowners have gradually-come forward with proposals for division. We suspect this trend will c0ntInue as available building sites diminish and the lot values escalate