2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 18 Associate Planner Lloyd advised that, at this time, the permit fee was yet undetermined, 864 but that the permit form was being developed, and would be determined by staff for 865 presentation with the annual fee schedule for review and adoption by the City Council. 866 Chair Boerigter asked staff to address the changed setback requirements (lines 38-39). 867 Associate Planner Lloyd reviewed various scenarios for an ADU on a primary structure or 868 on an attached garage, and advised that, for consistency, staff was recommending that 869 since an ADU would be occupied, it be treated differently than setbacks for other 870 accessory structures, such as an unoccupied garden shed; and in order to address its 871 proximity to neighboring properties and to retain their privacy. 872 Member Strohmeier questioned if staff was aware of any other municipalities that allowed 873 ADU’s as permitted uses. 874 Associate Planner Lloyd advised that some cities provided them as CU’s and some by 875 permit; however, he noted that the norm seemed to be some type of permit process to 876 inform and involve neighbors in the process, especially as ADU’s became more common 877 as permitted uses in residential districts. 878 Member Gisselquist questioned the criteria used by staff to determine whether to approve 879 or deny a permit; and what type of neighborhood notice was provided, or if approval was 880 based on the applicant meeting ordinance requirements and staff approval of the permit 881 without notification of neighbors. 882 Associate Planner Lloyd advised that the permit process was an administrative process 883 by staff, similar to the process for a deviation or minor variance; and provided a series of 884 conditions that must be satisfied for approval of a request. If criteria was met, Mr. Lloyd 885 advised that the application was approved. Mr. Lloyd noted that the application process 886 would address any contextual problems that staff may not be aware of, allowing the 887 neighbors an opportunity to be notified and provide comment, as well as allowing the 888 property owner seeking an ADU permit to work with their neighbors toward resolution of 889 any issues in advance of issuing the permit. If there were more serious problems needing 890 addressed, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff could then deny the permit. 891 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m.; no one appeared for or against. 892 Member Gisselquist expressed curiosity as to why the City Council was seeking these 893 revisions, noting that to-date only two (2) applications had been received and while not 894 minding the process for an ADU, he questioned if this revised language would cause 895 more people to apply or make it easier when an occasional ADU came forward. Member 896 Gisselquist rhetorically questioned if an ADU permit expired for a unit built above a 897 garage, and whether expiration of the permit upon sale of the home helped or hurt the 898 resale opportunities and values for a homeowner. 899 MOTION 900 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Cook to RECOMMEND TO 901 THE CITY COUNCIL approval of amendments to Chapters 1004, 1009 (for the 902 deletion of the existing CONDITIONAL USE standards) and Chapter 1011 of the 903 City Code; as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated 904 August 3, 2011; and based on the comments in Sections 2 and 3 of the report. 905 Ayes: 5 906 Nays: 1 (Gisselquist) 907 Motion carried. 908 6. Adjourn 909 Chair Boerigter adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:53 p.m. 910