CC_Minutes_2011_0328 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 5 Councilmember Willmus questioned staff on whether by allowing this ADU at 710 square feet,the City would be setting a precedent at the onset. Mr. Lloyd advised that this structure was a unique circumstance, being already separated from the primary dwelling structure; and provided several examples of the uniqueness of this distinct and separate space; and even though somewhat larger than code allows, it fell under a legal, non conformity as addressed in City Code, Chapter 1002, as well as State Statute. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that both a CONDITIONAL USE and an INTERIM USE ran with the property, not the cur- rent owner. Mayor Roe questioned if there were differences in an ADU and someone renting _ out a room in their home; with Mr. Lloyd responding affirmatively. Mr. Lloyd advised that both instances would require rental registration; and that single- family homeowners could have two (2) renters in their home, and that would not be called out separately, or take up a separate and integral part of the home, simp- ly living with the family and paying rent, but would not be occupying a separate unit. Mayor Roe noted that part of the ADU definition included identifying access points. Councilmember Pust questioned the public purpose in limiting square footage on a property other than impervious surfaces. Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent of the size limitation was to limit occupancy and to prevent single-family homes from becoming duplexes, when that was not their original function. Mr. Lloyd noted that duplex properties, originating as such, functioned differently, and created additional vehicle trips and traffic impacts, and impacting a neighborhood differently than a single-family home; thus their loca- tion in specific zoning districts. Pust moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10887 (Attachment E) entitled, "A Resolution Approving an Accessory Dwelling Unit as a Condi- tional Use at 2478 Hamline Avenue (PF11-004). Councilmember Willmus spoke in opposition to the motion, explaining his ratio- nale to Mr. Carr, opining that he thought this use should be designated as an IN- TERIM USE, not a CONDITIONAL USE, to require that it return to the City Council periodically for review. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion, opining that people could rent their property if they chose to do so; whether it was a stand alone structure or