Review Concept Plan for Graw Addition (Lot Split); Case of Gail Graw

The purpose of this case is to seek high level policy direction on a request for a lot split near Central Park. The Property Owner desires feedback before investing in engineering and surveying to complete a potential lot split. 

The site is located in the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District. Minimum lot size in said district is 2.5 acres (with 200 feet of lot frontage). The Property is 2.56 acres and approximately 260 feet wide. The resulting lot split would create 2 lots of 1.28 acres each approximately 130 feet wide. 

Notification is not required. 

The City has a number of older, rural residential subdivisions with 1 acre lots, so this request is not unique from a citywide perspective. However, under current standards, this lot split would not be permitted or would require a variance. The surrounding neighborhood is generally at 2.5 acre lots, so this lot split would be visually noticeable. The Owner still proposes to service via private well and septic. Both lots must account for a primary and backup septic location. 

When considering a Variance, the Planning Commission should consider the following:

1. Is the proposal in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance?
2. Is there a practical difficulty in complying with the ordinance?
   1.  The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance
   2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner
   3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality
3. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties

As a sidebar, circa 2006, the City completed the Central Rural Reserve Study. Said study looked at the redevelopment potential of this area, albeit with municipal water and sanitary sewer extensions. The study helped informed the policy decision to not support infill development or redevelopment of this area. 

The case is currently being handled as part of normal Staff duties. If the proposal moves forward, all costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Applicant. 

Staff desires broad policy direction from the Planning Commission before formulating a recommendation.

Based on discussion.