CC_Minutes_2011_0418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 18,2011 Page 7 Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus in supporting ADU's as Interim Uses to avoid facilitating additional ren- tal space in single-family areas while addressing special accommodations as needed for extended family and/or caregiving situations. Councilmember McGe- hee opined that a property owner should be able to recoup their initial investment within five (5) years, and should be amenable to bringing an application forward for renewal every five (5) years. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this would better serve the City than with a Conditional Use that ran with the land. Councilmember Pust opined that it was inconsistent to treat this type of rental property different than others, noting that the City only had rental registration now, not rental licensing. Councilmember Pust recognized the concerns about rentals in residential areas; however, she opined that there needed to be a broader policy discussion to restrict them in those areas, if the City Council so desired. Councilmember Pust noted that, if a property owner rented their primary dwel- ling, the City had no say; and in this situation, there was no solution with an Inte- rim versus Conditional Use. Councilmember Pust suggested a full-blown discus- sion by the City Council on rental properties. Councilmember Pust opined that limiting occupancy to two (2) people seemed arbitrary, and may be better suited if related to occupancy per square foot. Councilmember Pust noted that previous discussions were related to the need and marketability of this type of unit (e.g. granny flats); and that the HRA was already prepared to tackle the charge from the City Council on a broader discussion related to rental licensing. Councilmember Willmus concurred that a broader discussion was needed; but ad- vised that part of his rationale in objecting to this application is to not approve any ADU's until that broader discussion was held, in relationship with State and In- ternational Building Code regulations and applicable square footage language. Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that it was staff's opinion that the 600 square footage limitations addressed ADU's and brought them into balance. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this specific application was primari- ly to address alternative living arrangements for a family member; however, it did open the door for a limited rental unit. Mr. Trudgeon supported a policy discus- sion, advising that staff could continue to explore additional information; howev- er, for the application currently before the City Council, he recommended that they consider it on its own merits, and based on current zoning code, rather than changing the process midstream. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, should the City Coun- cil deny the application, it would need to provide findings for denial, and that such a denial would be out of compliance with the City's current zoning code. Mr. Trudgeon asked that the City Council honor the process they had adopted and under which current applications were reviewed; and to have the broader discus- sion as a separate discussion.