05/09/1984 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Planning & Zoning Baord May 9, 1984 Page -5- Ernest Apitz property and added to Mr. Grubbs property. Also a parcel 20' wide on the east side is proposed to be taken from Mr. Aptiz and added to Mr. Grubbs property so that the present shop would meet the side yard setback. Mr. McLean said that since Mr. Aptiz's property is zoned ER, five acres need to be taken to add to Mr. Grubbs. Mr. Karth said that the original intention of the ordinance was to not allow lot splits of less tha five acres for home sites. Mr. Grubbs is only requesting enough property to make his building conforming. Mr. Prokop felt he could go along with tran§ferring some property to correct the fact that the existing build- ing is setting partially on someone elses property. Mr. Prokop then reminded the Board of the action taken regarding Mr. Harold Hansen's request to transfer less than the required acreage, the Board denied this request. For the Board to take any other position than what the ER requirements are in this particular case would seem that Mr. Hansen could come back at the Board and the Board would be setting a very dang- erous precedence. Mr. Doocy and Mrs. Klaus agreed. Mr. Karth felt this would be extremely impractical. They just want enough land to conform to set backs not to start a junk yard. There is definitely a hardship of the land in this case. Mr. Grubbs could go through adverse possession procedings of the land but he would not make the building conforming since he will only get the land the building is setting on. The Board will anot have any input into this action. It is impractical to add five acres to the Grubbs property. It will only become a junk yard. Mr. Goldade noted the application for the lot split is not signed by Mr. Apitz. Since he is still the owner of record he should sign this form. Mr. Ostlie noted that in the GB zone the set back is 35'. If this situation is going to be corrected, the correct footage should be shown on the Lot Conveyance request form. The drawing should be altered. Also a buffer is not required by ordinance but the Board could require a buffer since this will border residential property. Mr. Doocy noted that in the past this Board has dealth with situations where they deminished the non - conformity as in the Pariseau case. Mr. McLean said the question will be; can the Board approve a lot split in an ER area of less than five acres to make a lot conforming in size and to make a building conforming by providing the proper set backs. Mr. Cody stated the Board may have valid reason to split but that may not make it legal, everythibgon the plan follows the step 1, the lot split, if the lot split is not good then all the other steps are worthless. There was discussion regarding whether or not there was need of the City Attorneys opinion. Mrs. Klaus felt there was good reason to grant a • variance in this case and that was to correct a non - conforming situation. She felt she did not need an attorneys opinion. Mr. Goldade said in the true spirit of the ordinance he felt this would be moving in the right direction.