2011_0328_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D 41 by City Code in square footage and occupancy limits, with the revised Zoning Code requirements not 42 incorporating any occupancy limits,, nor reviewed as part of this application. Mr. Lloyd noted that this 4'3 omission had come to staff's attention through this application process, and would most likely come 14-14, forward in the future as an amendment to the Zoning Code. Mr. Lloyd suggested that, if the Planning 45 Commission chose to do so,, they could include such a condition in their recommendation for approval. 46 Ms. Michels referenced her research of the original "as built"' plans for the home modified to include a 4`7 legal bedroom in the front of the unit by closing it off from the front entrance of the house and through 48 adding a closet and door. Ms. Michels opined that this set up legal occupancy for a two (2), bedroom 49 unit,, opening up the homeowner to potential discriminatory issues if not renting the unit out for higher 50 occupancy. Ms. Michels advised that in her discussion with area realtors listing homes, closets were not INIKONW, OW41 52 Ms. Lloyd responded that this would be a burden for the homeowner to ensure their compliance with 5'3 Fair Housing standards, as well as meeting City requirements,, but was not part of this Conditional Use 54 land use process. 55 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Lloyd reviewed City Code square footage requirements and how 56 they were calculated based on actual net livable area. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the Variance requested by the 5`7 property owner in 1990 and subsequent recommendation for denial by the Planning Commission and 58 ultimate approval of the Variance by the City Council in allowing the existing detached garage to remain 59 as a legal, nonconforming structure even when other site improvements were undertaken. 60 Applicant, Mr. Carr 61 Based on his discussion with some of his adjacent neighbors, Mr. Carr opined that the garage had been 62 built approximately twenty (20), years ago, and advised that he had lived on the property for four (4 , 6'3 years. Mr. Carr apologized for not having spoken directly to Ms. Michels about the proposed project. &4 Mr. Carr reviewed the net living area of the proposed unit based on the slanted roof and short wall along 65 one side and insulated interior wall; and his intent for the area in reconfiguring the entryway and 66 connection to the home. Mr. Carr advised that at this time it was not his intent to develop the unit as a 6 7, rental unit,, but wanted to have that option available in the future. Mr. Carr advised that the purpose of 68 this request was to eliminate problematic appraisals of the property in identifying actual living space of 69 the dwelling. Mr. Carr opined that the unit had been used as a rental in the past by a previous owner, but 7'0 that apparently the City had been unaware of that rental use. Mr. Carr advised that, while he was not 7'1 immediately intending to rent the unit, he concurred with recommendations of the City's Building 72 Permit staff to bring the unit up to Code as an AID U with more stringent conformity, as part of this 7,3 process. Mr. Carr advised that this would facilitate future appraisals and possible future sale of the T14 property. Mr. Carr advised that the request should unify the house for the time being and legally separate 75 the upper unit to make it a rental unit if so desired in the future. 7'6 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 7.-08 p.m. 7 . .... 7' Member Gisselquist concurred with the applicant that the proposed application would make the space 7'8 more a part of the existing dwelling unit, and spoke in support of the request, while recognizing that it 7'9 could become a rental in the future. Member Gisselquist expressed appreciation for the applicant's 8o honesty about the potential for future rental. Page 2 of 3