pf_01407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PLANNING REPORT q. 1407-82 CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT:- Olive Bailey LOCATION: Northwest corner of County Road Band Fulham ACTION REQUESTED: Division of a Lot PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: le If you'willrefer to the copy of the portion of.the section map that covers 'this area of the City, you will notice that the property in question ii'the easterly 85 feet of Lots 9 and 10, between St. Stephens Street and Fulham 44 :;Street, north of County Road B. This 85 feet was split off some:years ago. and a home,was constructed on the northerly.portion of this 85 foot wide lot Attached is'a copy of the air photo of this area of City with the lot.lines drawn on showing this relationship. 'Lot 9, you will notice, was originally platted at 129 feet- This lot line.. ;changed was so as to produce a 100'foot lot on the north side of Lot 9. 01 ithe. 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 16m ly who recently split off the other lots. This corner lot remaining em is now 158 feet by 185 feet. �1.2. Mary Lou Evers has contacted the staff since the proposal to split off the ' Bailey property,, and indicates that she now wishes ti divide the remainder o f- her lot as. we'll;. This will likely resultin an east -west lot split, 'leaVing A lot for.their existing home and producing a new buildable lot on , 't 6 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. 1i 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 12,500 square feet of land. 'Most,of the lots ,in the area are, of course, larger than the lots proposed. one,. block west there is a corner lot of 90 by 129 feet. Further north on St. C roix, there 'are lots 70 feet, 75 feet, and 86 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 approximately as proposed. 4. ThouT h 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 wi I*continue as available building sites diminish and the lot values escalate.