CC_Minutes_2011_0418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 18, 2011 Page 6 Councilmember McGehee requested that staff explain why ADU's were issued as a Conditional Use rather than as an Interim Use; and whether an Interim Use would accomplish the same ability to terminate a specific ADU. City Planner Thomas Paschke advised that the main distinction was that a Condi- tional Use was more permanent than an Interim Use, with the term of an Interim Use under City Code allowed at a maximum of five (5) years. Mr. Paschke opined that, given the healthy investment to a home or detached home by a prop- erty owner; and consistent with the recently updated and approved zoning code, staff was confident that ADU's had sufficient regulation through the Conditional Use process; with that regulation already in place if violations to City Code or vi- olation of applicable conditions were found not to be in compliance. Mr. Paschke noted that Interim and Conditional Uses were similar, but questioned if property owners would be willing to make substantial capital investments in their property if the use could be terminated after five (5) years at the will of the City and based upon its own merits. City Attorney Bartholdi noted that a requirement of an Interim Use was that a time expiration be included. Councilmember Willmus opined that a property owner's initial investment could be recouped under an Interim Use; and expressed concern that many ADU's could be put in as rental properties in low density residential areas; and through having the Interim Use tool it provided a safety switch for periodic review by the City; and if no problems were indicated, there would be no reason why the City Coun- cil would deny renewal of the Interim Use, similar to the Kent Street recycling fa- cility Interim Use adopted on tonight's Consent Agenda. Councilmember Johnson opined that it was not altogether unreasonable, if a prop- erty owner was renting out a portion of land, to come back at five (5) year inter- vals for evaluation, and may serve as a better tool for the City in granting ADU's than a Conditional Use. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10892 (Attachment D — as revised) entitled, "A Resolution Approving an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as a CONDITIONAL USE at 3091 Fairview Avenue (PF11-007);" with the added condition that the ADU at 3091 Fairview Avenue be limited to two (2) people. Mayor Roe noted rental properties were required to register annually, and in addi- tion to nuisance code enforcement, that means was in place to address potential issues based on rental units; in addition to the square footage and occupancy limi- tations of ADU's; unlike renting an entire home or duplex. Mayor Roe further noted that, if the City Council chose to make them available only as Interim Uses, the City's recently-adopted zoning code would need revised.