01-22-1986 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Little Canada Mayor and City Council Little Canada Planning Commission 6 January 1986 Page Three A major concern is the development and layout of the portion of the property abutting Arcade and the three to four existing single family housing units. We do not believe the layout as now presented addresses this area in an acceptable fashion. One alternative would be to dvelop the western edge of the site with single family detached units. This would accomplish a transition in land use internal to the site and with future occupant's knowledge of a land use variation occurring to their rear border. This is in contrast to exposing the existing residents west of Arcade to a change in established zoning and expected development character. Another alternative, should the manor homes be considered acceptable along the western border, is to greatly intensify landscape planting and screening. Such a man -made buffer can effectively isolate and shield the two differing housing styles. However, in conjunction with such site improvements, we do foresee the need to revise the site layout so that the three westerly units are more creatively drawn into the overall development. Possibly the introduction of a cul -de -sac or loop street could accomplish this end. At this point, given the uncertainty of the acceptability of the general concept, our office has not undertaken a redesign analysis. We believe, however, that should the Planning Commission and City Council determine that the development proposal has general merit, that the City staff should work with the developer to accomplish an improved layout. Again, due to the uncertainty involved, we will not at this point proceed with the other possible details of the site plan, other then to mention generally we believe that landscaping must be greatly intensified to enhance the project's parking areas and row house effect. Also to be noted is that the developer will have to work with the Park Commission on park dedication requirements and possible private facilities which should be added to the project. CONCLUSION Given certain considerations of the site and its location, the Goff Construction manor home proposal is seen as warranting discussion. The final determination must, however, rest on an analysis of city policy as it relates to residential development type as well as the specific site. A conclusion is the jurisidction of the City Council based upon advice of the Planning Commission. Should it be determined that the development proposal has general merit and acceptability, direction should be given to the staff to work with the developer to resolve site planning issues. These matters should subsequently be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. cc: Joseph Chlebeck Lowell Nagovski Don Carley Thomas Sweeney Pat Goff 13