2011_0328_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D 1 PLANNING FILE 11 -004 2 Request by James Carr for approval of an accessory dwelling unit as a CONDITIONAL USE at '3 2478 Hamline Avenue 4 Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at 634 p.m. 5 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of Mr. James Carr to modify living area above the 6 garage and ground-level entrance, requiring that the accessory dwelling unit (ADD ) gain formal 7, approval as a CONDITIONAL USE, as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated 8 March 2,, 2011. 9 Mr. Lloyd highlighted staff's analysis of the request for AID U above the attached garage, with living 10 space physically separated from the remainder of the principal residence, and already existing as legally 11 nonconforming under State Statute and City Code. Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicant's intent was to 12 improve and reconfigure the entrance to the unit, through shifting of the stairways, and to make it more 1'3 accessible as an extension of the principal residents, plans would still preserve the option for the space 14 as a separate dwelling unit. 15 Discussion included revisions to City code allowing rental of an ADU; verification that the main house 16 was not being rented out through City Code requirements for rental registration for any dwelling unit 1 7, being rented out to an unrelated renter; existing and proposed location of the stairway; and the ADU's 18 attachment to the main structure that was originally constructed as a berm home making the garage 19 appear free-standing but actually attached to the main structure. 20 Applicant, Mr. Carr 21 Mr. Carr provided a main level plan for display; and concurred with staff comments. 22 Public Comment 2'3 Diane Michels, 11332 Willow Circle, directly north of subject property 24 Ms. Michels shared a number of her concerns related to this request, including references to the unit as 25 an efficiency apartment; square footage of the unit exceeding normal size of efficiency apartments of 26 approximately 500 square feet, and potential for additional occupancy of 4-5 people rather than 1-2 2 7' people to not be discriminatory and in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Michels questioned 28 whether the proposed space was built as part of the original home or had been constructed since then; 29 opined that the calculations were inaccurate based on Multiple Listing Service (MLS) calculations for '30 finished space; referenced her conversations with City staff related to past permit denial for this subject '31 property and whether it related to this AD U; questioned the purpose of this space, whether for a family ' 2 Member or rental space; questioned why the front elevation of exterior doors was not included in the J3 J3 Staff report; and expressed concern related to off-street parking requirements based on City Code. 'N34 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Lloyd responded to the concerns and questions of Ms. Michels, '35 including clarifying that there was no requirement for additional garage space for vehicles on the site 'N36 based on current City Code and parking of vehicles allowed on a paved driveway surface similar to J.1 ............ -f - terminology for a N3 7' other single -fa residences and handled under normal permitting processes, N )81 "mother-in-law suite, ' or granny unit," used for reference only and not mandating that those living in '39 an AD U must be related,, but could be rented to non-family members, with it intentionally not referenced 40 in City Code to avoid imposing such limitations; and variables in new construction and remodeled areas Page 1 of 3