Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />May 10, 1984 <br />1 In 10 <br />(Cont.) <br />Mr. Licht reported that there have been complaints at the Council <br />level about the provision. Mr. Licht pointed out that in the Schrier <br />development the neighbors were opposed to the duplex in the R -1 <br />area. Mr. DeLonais stated that he was present at that meeting and <br />did not remember any opposition to the duplex. <br />Mr. Licht pointed out that currently the first one to request the <br />duplex gets it and there is no way to determine where the 1 in 10 <br />should start. <br />Mr. Costas suggested that just these details needed to he worked out. <br />The Planner stated that he is suggesting at a minimum the City should <br />increase the lot size for the duplex. The Planner did not feel that <br />double density made sinse. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury agreed that the ordinance should be cleaned up. <br />Mr. Costa stated that he was concerned that the taxpayers of Little <br />Canada were losing some of their rights. <br />Mr. DeBace suggested that mother -in -law apartments be allowed under <br />special use permit. DeBace felt that this would enable the City to <br />retain control. <br />Mr. Costa did not feel that the provision caused a problem. Mr. Licht <br />pointed out that with the 1 in 10 provision if there is already a <br />duplex in an area, someone who really needed a mother -in -law <br />apartment would he precluded from having one. The Planner felt that <br />the mother -in -law apartment by conditional use permit was reasonable. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury pointed out that there is a difference between a <br />rental duplex and an owner- occupied duplex. Kingsbury stated that <br />she did not like to see owner - occupied duplexes only allowed in <br />duplex areas. The Planner suggested that these types of things <br />could be handled by rezonings or PUD's. The Planner pointed out <br />the !leather Oaks development. The Planner stated that Heather Oaks <br />is all twin homes, but the City has not received any requests for <br />mixed uses. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury stated that the current 1 in 10 provision is a problem, <br />but she did not want to eliminate mother -in -law apartments. Kingsbury <br />suggested that perhaps the square footage could be increased. <br />Mr. Costa pointed out that most of the City is already platted, and <br />increasing lot size would eliminate the possibility on a number of <br />lots in the City. The Planner stated that this was true, but pointed <br />out that mother -in -law apartments could be allowed on a 10,000 square <br />foot lot. <br />Page -8- <br />