2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 17 Associate Planner Lloyd advised that the initial thinking had been specifically related to 812 limiting the size of ADU’s and noted that the size limitation had not been removed, but 813 was addressed in lines 29 – 30 of the document. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that the 814 650 square footage was an arbitrary number and seemed to staff to be more moderate 815 than a one-bedroom unit, and addressed the intent to keep the ADU’s smaller in size in 816 order to limit the number of people without having to actually count how many people 817 were residing in an ADU. Upon receipt of the two (2) applications to-date, staff found that 818 one of those spaces applying for an ADU was already larger than the 650 square foot 819 limit; and raised questions of how to limit the number of people at any one house; and 820 make the requirements be more explicit for that intent while allowing for some size limit. 821 City Attorney Bartholdi left at this time, approximately 8:37 p.m. 822 Chair Boerigter questioned why the 650 square feet only addressed living area and why 823 storage space was excluded. 824 Associate Planner Lloyd advised that, while a more simple approach could be used to 825 quantify the allowed unit size, he would recommend making it larger than 650 square feet 826 if storage areas, hallways, and the like are to be included in the area figure, given staff’s 827 experience with applications received to-date. Mr. Lloyd noted that both of those 828 applications had been for existing space above a garage, and questioned why a stairway 829 should count against the ADU’s living space; or knee-wall storage areas that were not 830 livable or usually heated or insulated spaces. 831 Chair Boerigter questioned if the applicant made that determination. 832 Associate Planner Lloyd advised that, previous to the new Zoning Code being adopted, if 833 an applicant called the office and questioned the actual use for living space, it required 834 staff to be aware of what was specifically being considered. With the new ordinance in 835 place, Mr. Lloyd advised that it was obvious upon staff’s receipt of the application. 836 Chair Boerigter addressed the revocation section (page 3, line 64) related to occupancy 837 and sought clarification on implications for those two (2) applications received to-date. 838 Chair Boerigter sought staff’s rationale in making the permit expire if the home was sold. 839 Associate Planner Lloyd advised that the overall intent was that both units would no 840 longer be available as an ADU until they made application for a new ADU Occupancy 841 Permit as detailed. Mr. Lloyd advised that the requirement for the ADU permit’s expiration 842 when the home was sold was to allow the new homeowner to be explicitly aware of what 843 they were required to do, that it was not just an automatic ADU without them processing 844 such an application and making it available as an ADU again. Mr. Lloyd noted that, 845 obviously, while the ADU’s physical space remained in place, it couldn’t be used as an 846 ADU without following the process and could not legally be rented out. Mr. Lloyd noted 847 that this was intended to serve as an educational opportunity for new property owners. 848 Member Boguszewski questioned staff’s interpretation of the City Council’s intent in 849 requesting these revisions and what they were trying to achieve with these amendments 850 currently being considered. Member Boguszewski questioned if a permit was less time 851 consuming than the CU process. 852 Associate Planner Lloyd advised that he believed that the intent was to simplify the 853 process for achieving an ADU on a property. Mr. Lloyd alluded to conversations among 854 Councilmembers related to CU’s and ADU’s and whether an ADU was more appropriate 855 than an Interim Use permit, at which time staff clarified the distinct differences in the two 856 and how the ADU could better achieve the intent being desired by the City Council. Mr. 857 Lloyd noted that the ADU permit approval process would be handled administratively 858 unless there was an appeal of the administration decision by staff to deny an ADU due to 859 a proposed application not being consistent with code requirements. Mr. Lloyd advised 860 that the neighbors would be made aware of the permit process. 861 Member Boguszewski questioned if the permit fee had been determined at this time and 862 whether it would be reasonable. 863