Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 10, 1994 <br />to make a profit. Sommer felt that the City had the <br />obligation to the property owners to retain this <br />property as R -1. <br />DeLonais pointed out the lessened impact to the lake <br />and fewer docks under the R -2 development proposed, as <br />well as that safety would be enhanced with fewer <br />driveways, the twinhome concept provides for no greater <br />density, the City has more control over the <br />development. <br />Sommer reported that DeLonais' statement was his <br />personal opinion. Sommer stated that his opinion was <br />that twinhomes would not be owner - occupied. Sommer <br />again asked if the law did not require a reason to <br />rezone a property. Sommer asked what the benefit was <br />in rezoning the Mitchell property from R -1 to R -2. <br />DeLonais pointed out that the Little Canada <br />Comprehensive Plan addresses this issue. <br />Keis stated that he did not know if a reason to rezone <br />was required, and pointed out that the developer is not <br />proposing to construct apartment buildings. The <br />rezoning would be a change, but Keis questioned whether <br />it was a significant change. Keis pointed out the type <br />of home being proposed and did not believe that this <br />would turn into a slum area. <br />Sommer asked what complaints the City usually receives <br />when a rezoning is proposed. Sommer was sure that <br />adjacent residents to any property proposed to be <br />rezoned would prefer that the property remain R -1. <br />Sommer also felt that the City would gain more tax <br />revenue with a single- family homes development. <br />DeLonais disagreed, and pointed out that City <br />maintenance for an R -2 development would be very <br />minimal since the street would be a private street. <br />The City Planner reported that property taxes would be <br />based on the value of the homes. In comparing a <br />20 -unit townhome development and 20 single - family <br />homes, the taxes would be the same if the values were <br />the same. The Planner reported that City services <br />required for the townhome development would be much <br />less than for single - family homes. <br />Sommer did not believe that the value of the townhomes <br />would increase, but would for single - family homes. <br />Sommer pointed out that the owners of single - family <br />homes would make improvements to their homes, thus <br />increasing their values. Therefore, the tax base for <br />singles would be higher than for townhomes. <br />Page 9 <br />