2011-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 02, 2011 Page 2 Discussion included revisions to City code allowing rental of an ADU; verification that the 44 main house was not being rented out through City Code requirements for rental 45 registration for any dwelling unit being rented out to an unrelated renter; existing and 46 proposed location of the stairway; and the ADU’s attachment to the main structure that 47 was originally constructed as a berm home making the garage appear free-standing but 48 actually attached to the main structure. 49 Applicant, Mr. Carr 50 Mr. Carr provided a main level plan for display; and concurred with staff comments. 51 Public Comment 52 Diane Michels, 11332 Willow Circle, directly north of subject property 53 Ms. Michels shared a number of her concerns related to this request, including 54 references to the unit as an efficiency apartment; square footage of the unit exceeding 55 normal size of efficiency apartments of approximately 500 square feet, and potential for 56 additional occupancy of 4-5 people rather than 1-2 people to not be discriminatory and in 57 violation of the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Michels questioned whether the proposed space 58 was built as part of the original home or had been constructed since then; opined that the 59 calculations were inaccurate based on Multiple Listing Service (MLS) calculations for 60 finished space; referenced her conversations with City staff related to past permit denial 61 for this subject property and whether it related to this ADU; questioned the purpose of this 62 space, whether for a family member or rental space; questioned why the front elevation 63 of exterior doors was not included in the staff report; and expressed concern related to 64 off-street parking requirements based on City Code. 65 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Lloyd responded to the concerns and questions of 66 Ms. Michels, including clarifying that there was no requirement for additional garage 67 space for vehicles on the site based on current City Code and parking of vehicles allowed 68 on a paved driveway surface similar to other single-family residences and handled under 69 normal permitting processes; terminology for a “mother-in-law suite,” or “granny unit,” 70 used for reference only and not mandating that those living in an ADU must be related, 71 but could be rented to non-family members, with it intentionally not referenced in City 72 Code to avoid imposing such limitations; and variables in new construction and 73 remodeled areas by City Code in square footage and occupancy limits, with the revised 74 Zoning Code requirements not incorporating any occupancy limits, nor reviewed as part 75 of this application. Mr. Lloyd noted that this omission had come to staff’s attention 76 through this application process, and would most likely come forward in the future as an 77 amendment to the Zoning Code. Mr. Lloyd suggested that, if the Planning Commission 78 chose to do so, they could include such a condition in their recommendation for approval. 79 Ms. Michels referenced her research of the original “as built” plans for the home modified 80 to include a legal bedroom in the front of the unit by closing it off from the front entrance 81 of the house and through adding a closet and door. Ms. Michels opined that this set up 82 legal occupancy for a two (2) bedroom unit, opening up the homeowner to potential 83 discriminatory issues if not renting the unit out for higher occupancy. Ms. Michels advised 84 that in her discussion with area realtors listing homes, closets were not excluded. 85 Ms. Lloyd responded that this would be a burden for the homeowner to ensure their 86 compliance with Fair Housing standards, as well as meeting City requirements, but was 87 not part of this Conditional Use land use process. 88 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Lloyd reviewed City Code square footage 89 requirements and how they were calculated based on actual net livable area. Mr. Lloyd 90 reviewed the Variance requested by the property owner in 1990 and subsequent 91 recommendation for denial by the Planning Commission and ultimate approval of the 92 Variance by the City Council in allowing the existing detached garage to remain as a 93 legal, nonconforming structure even when other site improvements were undertaken. 94 Applicant, Mr. Carr 95 Based on his discussion with some of his adjacent neighbors, Mr. Carr opined that the 96