Laserfiche WebLink
Little Canada Planning Commission, <br />Mayor and City Council <br />1 October 1982 <br />Page Two <br />1. Land Use. The property was previously zoned I -1, Light Industrial. Based <br />upon the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, the property was rezoned <br />to B -W in order to make the area north of County Road B more compatible <br />with future plans for multiple family residential in Maplewood. Commercial/ <br />leased offices are listed as permitted uses in the B -W District. Offices <br />are perhaps considered to be the most compatible of all the uses permitted <br />for that zoning district. In this light, the proposed development is found <br />to be consistent with the land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. <br />2. Future Development. Mr. Mueller's ultimate intentions are to build two more <br />structures on Lots 20 and 21 (see Exhibit 0, attached). Section 903.020 <br />C.3. of the Zoning Ordinance requires that construction of more than one <br />principal building on a lot be processed as.a planned unit development (by <br />conditi ^ -a1 use permit). In order to begin construction as rapidly as <br />possible, Mr. Mueller requests approval of only the first building at this <br />time. <br />While we feel that the first structure can be allowed independently from the <br />others, it is strongly advised that the applicant prepare the necessary <br />documents for a P.U.D. for the remaining two buildings as soon as possible. <br />His plans should allow time for appropriate processing under the terms of <br />the Zoning Ordinance. <br />3. Toni g Reouirements. Since the applicant's site plan did not include <br />dimensions, we took the liberty to place them on his site plan. Based upon <br />our measurements, the following problems were found to exist: <br />a. <br />The site plan shows a 30 foot front yard setback. The Ordinance <br />requires 40 feet. <br />b. The parking lot encroaches nine feet onto lot 20. If this is to be <br />reviewed as an independent site plan, the building and parking area <br />should be moved to the west to provide at least a five foot setback. <br />As an alternative, the lots could be legally combined as one. <br />c. The rear yard setback requirement is 20 feet. The site plan shows <br />only 17 feet. <br />Building height and other setback and area requirements have been complied <br />with. In discussing these problems with Mr. Mueller, he indicated that <br />he will submit a revised plan which conforms to the Ordinance standards <br />prior to the 7 October Planning Commission meeting. <br />O(112 <br />