Laserfiche WebLink
Little Canada Planning Commission, <br />Mayor and City Council <br />6 January 1981 <br />Page Three <br />assurance could be drafted into a development agreement between the developer <br />and the City. It should be noted that lot width variances would still be required <br />in order to allow fourplexes. <br />A final approach to the problem might be to process the request as a planned unit <br />development. While the proposed development does not contain all the elements <br />typically desired in a PUD, the PUD process would allow better control of the <br />project for the City, as well as a degree of assurance for the developer. A major <br />advantage of the PUD approach is the elimination of variances. Additionally, the <br />resubdivision need not take place until there was some guarantee of what would be <br />built on the site. <br />5. Site Plans. The site sketch provided by the applicant is obviously not adequate for <br />review or approval. However, either of the approaches suggested above would <br />provide for final site plan review by the City. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Although the Comprehensive Plan has suggested low density residential use for the property <br />in question, it is felt that the City must also recognize the existing R -3 zoning. In this <br />light, the proposed development may very well be a good compromise, especially since the <br />property immediately across the street has yet to be developed. If the proposed development <br />is agreeable to the City, it is strongly recommended that one of the two approaches mentioned <br />in 4 above be pursued by the City. Finally, the City must decide on the acceptability of <br />vacating Lake Street between Ruth Street and the Soo Line Railroad right -of -way. <br />cc: Joe Chlebeck <br />Clayton Parks <br />Don Carley <br />Larry Squires <br />Rockne Waite <br />0 <br />