Commission tables request to split lot for intended ‘granny pad’; ordinance likely requires a variance

John Dimery asked the commission to approve PCAF‑25‑8 to split a parcel (parcel ID cited in staff notes) so a small dwelling for his wife’s mother could have separate ownership. Dimery said the intent was for his mother‑in‑law to own the separate lot while living adjacent to the family residence.

City planning staff told the commission the proposed new parcel would not meet minimum subdivision standards — the ordinance requires a quarter‑acre minimum and 50 feet of frontage — and that without a variance the new lot would not be buildable. Commissioners and staff clarified that the property could be split as a plat action, but a separate variance from development standards would be required for the split parcel to be buildable.

Commissioners raised access and long‑term ownership concerns: if the parcel became separately owned in the future, access and shared‑driveway easements and how any reversion would be handled would raise complications. The applicant said the intent was for the lot to revert to the parent parcel when it was no longer needed, but commissioners pointed out that reversion cannot be guaranteed.

Dimery requested the application be tabled to pursue more information. The commission voted to table the application. Roll‑call on the table motion recorded: Carl Eaglin — yes; Patrick Tavenaugh — yes; Josh Wobler — yes; Mike Armstrong — yes; Rick Ferris — yes; Jerry Ralston — yes.

The commission advised the applicant to consult with title interests and consider submitting a variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals if the intent is to have a separately owned, buildable parcel.