Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />April 14, 1988 <br />Davison suggested that a variance be granted in the Neamy case. <br />Bill Blesener reported that it was the intention of the Council that <br />since there are a limited number of houses built years ago on large <br />lots that provided adequate area for 5 foot setbacks for future lot <br />splits, to adopt this ordinance. Blesener pointed out that the Codes <br />were changed requiring 10 foot setbacks and now the properties cannot <br />be divided without a variance. Blesener felt that this was not allowing <br />the reasonable use of a property. <br />Blesener pointed out that the lot Neamy wants to divide is 80 feet by <br />200 feet. <br />Davison pointed out that the lot would be buildable if part of the <br />garage were removed. <br />The Planner noted that it was possible to divide the Neamy property into <br />a different configuration. <br />Blesener pointed out that by doing so would put the rear yard lot line <br />very close to the Neamy house. <br />Davison commented that if the ordinance only effects a few lots, the <br />impact is not that great. However, Davison felt that there was the <br />potential for a lot of other issues to come about from this ordinance. <br />The Planner reported that he has been planner for 4 years and the <br />situation has come up 4 times. The Planner felt that the issue <br />may be wide - ranging. <br />DeLonais recommended approval of Ordinance No. 297 AMENDING SECTION <br />905.050 OF THE LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING <br />SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN R -1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL <br />DISTRICTS. <br />Motion seconded by Herkenhoff. <br />Motion carried 4 - 2 (Schweizer and Davison against.) <br />Text The City Planner reported that there was an application for a text <br />Amendment amendment allowing accessory residential apartments in B -3 areas. <br />Accessory However, this application has been withdrawn. The Council, however, <br />Residential suggested that the Planning Commission review the issue. <br />Apartments <br />DeLonais asked if other cities were allowing such uses. <br />The Planner replied that the proposal is a relatively new one. <br />DeLonais asked if individual stores in a shopping center were condominized, <br />if such a residential unit would be allowed for each store. <br />Page 12 <br />