02-11-1981 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 6 January 1981 Page Two 1. Resubdivision. The property in question has previously been platted into very narrow and unbuildable lots (as narrow as 25 feet). Although these lots have been combined under one ownership for tax purposes, the potential exists for the Tots to be sold off individually without the knowledge or approval of the City. Regardless of how the property is to be developed, it is strongly recommended that the lots be legally combined (preferrably replotted) prior to any approval by the City. 2. Rezoning. Two - family dwellings are not listed as a permitted use in the R -3 District. While they are included as a conditional use, one of the requirements for such housing style is that "two or more two - family dwellings shall not abut one another ". Thus, if the applicant wishes to build two in a row, a rezoning of those parcels to R -2 is required. The advisability of this rezoning will be discussed further on in this report. 3. Lake Street. In reviewing the property dimensions shown on the sketch provided, the total length of the property appears to be 30 feet longer than that shown on City section maps. Apparently, although not specified on the application, the applicant is requesting vacation of Lake Street between Ruth Street and the Soo Line Railroad right -of -way. As a result, the City will have to address the street vacation as part of this request. 4. Lot Size Variance. Assuming approval of the street vacation, the applicant has requested variances for the lots which are to contain fourplexes (shown as 1, 2 and 3 on Exhibit B). The lots as proposed are 100 feet wide, while the Zoning Ordinance requires 125 feet. Although it was explained to the applicant that variance requests involve certain criteria (i.e. physical hardship, etc.) and that the request, as proposed, does not meet the criteria, he wishes to pursue the variances based upon his feeling that he is actually developing the site at a lesser intensity than it is currently zoned for. A major concern with granting the requested variances on this basis is that the City has no assurance that ultimate development would be limited to fourplexes. While the applicant may intend to build fourplexes, another owner may wish to recombine lots and build larger structures. One solution to this problem is to rezone the entire property to R -2, Medium Density Residential . This would automatically limit develop- ment of the site to single and two - family residential, while allowing fourplexes as a conditional use. The City would then have better control over any development more intense than two - family dwellings. While this could potentially leave the developer with no assurance that he could build fourplexes, it is felt that such 4