02-22-1984 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Little Canada Planning Commission 31 January 1984 Page Two 2. Increase lot size of twin units in the R -1. As noted above, single and twin unit lots in almost every instance have differing lot size requirements in districts where they are commonly allowed. This approach removes any arbitrary decision as to which lots will accom- modate duplex structures. This concept as applied to Little Canada's R -1 or for that matter, R -2 district would be to have single family units on 10,000 square foot lots and duplex unit, on 12,500 or 15,000 square foot lots. The rationale for the increased lot size is the potential doubling of density. 3. Maximum second unit, unit size. In line with the initial intent of allowing a twin unit in an R -1 District, a valid approach might be to restrict the maximum size of the second unit which is permitted as part of a "twin" in the R -1 district. The thought behind this approach is to restrict the second unit to truly a family oriented situation by allowing at maximum an efficiency or one bedroom apartment. A possible limitation would be a maximum of 520 square feet. (This is the ordinance's present limit for a one bedroom elderly unit.) If this were the approach taken, a one rather than a two parking space require- ment could also be imposed. Approval of such a unit would also carry a conditional use permit requirement (please note that restricting the second unit to a family member would be questionable legally). The one in ten provision would continue to be questionable, however, under this approach. 4. Combined increased lot size and maximum unit size. A fourth alternative would be to require an additional lot area to accommodate the second unit. This would automatically define at the time of platting what properties would likely be converted or developed as twin units. This does, however, reduce flexibility which is a needed characteristic of "mother -in -law" apartment units. Simultaneously, by adopting a maximum unit size, a "typical" rental situation would commonly be avoided. SUMMARY At this point, we are continuing to do research on what other communities are doing to address the issue at hand. The alternatives outlined above do, however, provide a basis for thought and initial discussion of this matter. In this regard, it is felt that fundamental to resolution of the issue is a definition of what is trying to be achieved. This may, in fact, dictate several changes to the present ordinance as well as altering standards in both the R -1 and R -2 Districts. As more information becomes available, we will forward it to you accordingly. cc: Joseph Chlebeck Toni Sweeney Ed Locke 25 0 FEB 2 1984 CITY OF LITI LF CANADA