Laserfiche WebLink
b` <br />MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />May 10, 1984 <br />1 In 10 <br />(Cont.) <br />The Planner commented that the City's policy has been to encourage <br />home ownership and the idea of the zero lot line does this. The <br />Planner pointed out that if the City allows zero lot lines on a <br />regular basis, it is allowing a single family unit on a 5,000 <br />square foot lot. The Council then has the problem of precluding <br />people with substandard lots from developing their proeprty. <br />The Planner felt that the City's intent was to go with the zero lot <br />line, but wantsto protect the R -1 district. <br />Mr. Deface pointed out that there are a lot of one acre lots in <br />the City that would meet an increased lot size requirement. DeBace <br />stated that by allowing a duplex by special use permit, this gives <br />everyone in the City a fair chance. It also allows the City to look <br />at each case individually. <br />The Planner pointed out that the current ordinance allows duplexes <br />by special use permit. The 1 in 10 concept came about so that <br />everyone could not have a duplex. <br />Mr. Costa felt that the provision should remain as is to give young <br />families a chance at home ownership. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury pointed out that in some neighborhoods twice as many <br />vehicles or children might cause problems. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff stated that he called a few people about this matter <br />and received no opposition to the present situation. Mr. Herkenhoff <br />asked if a family had a mother -in -law apartment that became vacant, <br />if it could be rented out. <br />Mr. Ducharme asked if there was anything in the ordinance that precluded <br />someone from renting out a spare bedroom. <br />The Planner replied that the ordinance states that not more than <br />three unrelated persons can live in a single family home. <br />The Planner stated that the mother -in -law apartment was the original <br />intent of the 1 in 10 provision. The Planner stated that he did not <br />think the City could limit the occupant of a mother -in -law apartment <br />to a relative. <br />The Planner pointed out that if the 1 in 10 provision were eliminated <br />and someone wanted a duplex, they could request R -2 zoning. <br />Mr. Costa did not feel that an R -2 zoning request of this nature <br />would get approved. Mr. DeRace felt that if enough people were in <br />favor, the R -2 request would get approved. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff suggested that this would be spot- zoning. The Planner <br />disagreed and stated that spot zoning was industrial zoning in the <br />middle of residential. <br />Page -9_ <br />