07-23-2014 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 23, 2014 PUD PERMIT - 56 LITTLE CANADA ROAD — THOMAS HOMES FOR MAINTENANCE OF PINE TREES ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF 3000 CENTERVILLE ROAD The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (4). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. The Council thanked Mr. Peters for his cooperation in resolving the tree issue. Montour opened the Public Hearing to consider approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit to allow a three -unit residential development at 56 Little Canada Road East requested by Thomas Homes. It was noted that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD Permit. The City Planner reported that this request for PUD Permit started out as a request for a tri-plex; however the request has been evolving over the past several weeks. After discussion of the tri-plex request during the June planning cycle, the applicant amended the tri-plex request but is still pursuing multi -family housing. The Planner noted that the property is zoned PUD which requires that any multi -family housing be restricted to individuals aged 55 or more. The applicant has indicated his willingness to proceed on that basis. The Planner noted that the original application did not include a survey of the property, so there was difficulty in understanding what would fit on this parcel. The Planning Commission then tabled action at their June meeting, and the applicant has since come back with two different proposals. The Planner noted that the first alternate proposal submitted was for a duplex with detached garages. The Planner indicated that in reviewing that submittal, however, he discovered that the applicant was proposing carriage units over the garages that could be rented out to family members or others requiring care. The Planner noted that the Codes does not accommodate these smaller dwelling units, and indicated that the City would not be able to restrict the occupancy of those units. The Planner felt that in many cases, the owners would rent to whoever would be interested in renting the carriage units. The Planner then noted that just prior to the Planning Commission meeting the applicant submitted additional information, along with a survey, that proposed a two -unit structure with attached garages. The Planner stated that the applicant indicated that the intent was that the structure would have one owner and the second unit would be rented. The 5