01-23-1985 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Little Canada Mayor and City Council . Little Canada Planning Commission 3 January 1985 Page Two The parcel in question is part of.Planning District 18 and borders directly on District 19. The area, both as part of the Comprehensive Plan and the discussions which took place during the summer of 1984, is one in which questions exist as to the most appropriate land use. The decision to rezone the single family residences to R -B was partly a hedge in use determination, but also clearly established a transi- tional land use pattern from high intensity commercial on the west bordering Rice Street to lower intensity residential east of Park Avenue. The Howe request is viewed as an extension of the transitional land use concept. The medium density housing with its proposed north /south orientation can buffer itself from commercial uses to the west. Compatibility with low density residential east of Park Avenue is also seen to exist on the same basis, while simultaneously minimizing traffic, general activity and the like. As a consequence, the request as proposed is viewed positively from a rezoning perspective. Conditional Use Permit - Multiple Dwelling. An evaluation of this aspect of the development request must be weighed on the same criteria as noted in the preceding section. Land use wise, the proposal is seen as an acceptable transitional activity which can exist harmoniously with existing and potential surrounding development. Subdivision. To accomplish the proposed development, the land in question must be divided from the present site which runs through the block from Park Avenue to Rice Street. Such a split is seen as necessary and is readily endorsed except for its failure to meet minimum lot width requirements. This consideration will be reviewed further in the section below entitled "Variance ". A subdivision of the base parcel is also being requested. The request proposes to situate each structure and its parking on separate lots. This concept is also viewed as acceptable. However, to accomplish this end, a planned unit development - con- ditional use permit must be approved as the westerly lot shares access with the easterly parcel and has no public frontage. Again, this matter is discussed further below. Beyond the considerations raised above, it is suggested that the lots be required to have five foot drainage and utility easements placed along all property lines, a park dedication requirement be imposed, and utility construction and drainage be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. At minimum, however, is that each structure have its own separate utility service. It is also assumed that the land transfer will be prepared as a final plat and processed accordingly. Variance - Lot Width. Under the present B -3 zoning district, a minimum lot width of 100 feet is required. The parcel in question is 105 feet. In changing the zoning, however, to R -2, a 125 foot lot width is required. In this regard, the applicant has attempted to secure additional land, but has been rejected by neighboring owners. In view of the fact that the initial land division was in excess of the B -3 district and was likely in response to the resulting standards, the change in proposed use should not be hampered by the site design standard. Therefore, on the basis that the lot was previously approved and the standard lot standards changed with public action or rezoning, it is felt that the 20 foot lot variance is justified. 16