08-26-1987 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Little Canada Planning Commission 7 July 1987 Page Two It appears there is sufficient area in this lot for a subdivision that would meet requirements. In cases such as this one where alternatives are available that would not require variances to meet the Ordinance, we can not positively approve the subdivision or variance request. This action would also create a questionable precedent allowing substandard lots when there are no real hardships present. We have attached a preferred alternative lot layout which we feel would be more appropriate for the site and meets ordinance requirements. Please see attachment labelled "alternative ". In summary, as the proposed lot split is presented for Tract B a variance would be necessary to accommodate lot width requirement. This proposed road would not be dedicated as a street and the Tract A frontage would be on Keller Parkway rather than the proposed street. In this case, the requirements would still be met for Tract A. Or secondly, the road could be dedicated as a public street, with the required 50 foot width as shown, however, a cul -de -sac would be required as dead -end streets are prohibited per ordinance. The . setbacks would then have to be altered to meet the cul -de -sac setbacks, therefore, nearly eliminating Tract B as a buildable lot. The above mentioned options are not recommended as they would not be in the best interest of the City, creating a perceived precedent, or the property owner, creating a nonbuildable or extremely limited lot for develop- ment. It is our opinion that alternative lot layouts exist for this parcel as there is adequate area to create two lots and as such should be examined. As noted above, an alternative lot layout is attached to this report that we feel would be better suited for this particular lot in question. Referring to the Planner's alternative as shown, the reconfigured lot lines basically show the same layout. This alternative does not include a road which was originally proposed. Dead end streets or private roads are discouraged as maintenance becomes a problem, for example snow plowing. The lot area has been slightly refigured for both tracts. Tract A is now 17,800 square feet rather than 18,300 square feet. Tract A also meets the width requirement and provides adequate area for a single family home. Tract B area has been refigured to 47,500 square feet from 42,200 square feet. The lot width is 75 feet now which meets the requirement. The layout accommodates the subdivision request without further complications while meeting the zoning requirements for the Shoreland District. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above review and the minimum lot requirements for the subdivision of a lot, our office cannot recommend an approval of a lot split that creates a substandard lot when excessive area is readily available that would meet requirements. Therefore, we recommend that the proposed lot split of this pro- perty be denied and that the attached alternative lot layout be considered as a preferred option. CC: Joe Chlebeck John Palacio Tom Sweeney Don Carley Dr. and Mrs. Orr Molly Comeau Page 9