Laserfiche WebLink
Little Canada Planning Commission, <br />Mayor and City Council <br />4 September 1979 <br />Page Two <br />From a planning perspective, it is recommended that only one principal <br />structure be allowed on a single lot unless approved as a planned unit <br />development. Past experience has shown that although the original <br />developer may fully intend to occupy the property for the expected life <br />of the structure(s), too often they come back to the City at a later date <br />requesting to subdivide the property in order to sell off one of the buildings <br />to a separate individual. Such situations inevitably result in nonconforming <br />development and often inadequate supportive facilities for one or both of <br />the properties (e.g. parking). <br />It is strongly recommended that the City consider one of three alternatives: <br />a. Permit only one building, larger if necessary, to be built on the <br />property, eliminating the potential problems previously discussed <br />b. Require the developer to subdivide the property into two lots fronting <br />on County Road B, positioning the buildings, drives and parking in <br />conformance to the zoning ordinance. It should be noted that this <br />results in long narrow lots, the backs of which may end up unused or <br />underused . <br />c. Require the developer to install a north /south cul-de -sac street on the <br />eastern fifty feet of the property (or 25' if done in conjunction with <br />the adjacent property to the east). Then require that the remaining <br />property to be subdivided into two lots fronting on the new road. A <br />possible road would, of course, have to be reviewed by the City Engineer <br />and, in addition, it is questionable whether the applicant would absorb <br />the expense of constructing a road in order to build two metal buildings. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Until such time as the grading and filling issue has been resolved, <br />that the City take no action. If, according to the City Engineer, <br />feasibly and acceptably accomplished, it is recommended that the <br />of the three previously mentioned development alternatives rather <br />proposed. In no way is it recommended that two principal structu <br />be placed on one lot. <br />cc: Joe Chlebeck <br />Don Carley <br />Clayton Parks <br />Larry Squires <br />Peter L. Langeslay <br />(758.09 - 79.10) <br />it is recommended <br />the filling can be <br />City consider one <br />than that which is <br />res be allowed to <br />08 <br />