Laserfiche WebLink
accessory buildings on parcels less than two (2) acres rather than allowing for additional height <br /> allowances at this time. <br /> City Planner Anderson reported staff would like to have a discussion on this topic to determine if <br /> a text amendment that would allow for an increase in accessory building height for a two-story <br /> accessory building is warranted. Note, City Staff is not advocating for or recommending that an <br /> amendment is needed. There are several items to consider: <br /> 1. What does the Planning Commission feel was the intention of allowing a two (2) story <br /> accessory buildings: to accommodate a 'bonus room' or if it was to truly allow for two (2) <br /> full stories? <br /> 2. Would allowing a deviation from height standards by Conditional Use Permit rather than <br /> by Variance be a more appropriate tool to address accessory building height (similar to <br /> how deviations to sign standards are addressed)? <br /> City Planner Anderson explained addressing the two above points will indicate whether a text <br /> amendment should be contemplated. However, staff also wanted to raise a potential <br /> concern related to two (2) story accessory buildings being converted to an accessory dwelling <br /> unit (complete independent living facilities entirely isolated from the primary dwelling unit). If <br /> the intention is to allow a true, two (2) story building, Staff would need to work with the City <br /> Attorney to develop proper and enforceable language prohibiting converting these into <br /> accessory dwelling units. That is, unless that is something the Planning Commission believes is <br /> worth exploring as well. <br /> Commission Business <br /> Chairperson Bauer asked if staff was aware of the intended use for the second story of the <br /> proposed accessory structure. <br /> City Planner Anderson stated the second story was labeled storage/shop. <br /> Chairperson Bauer feared that by allowing second stories on accessory structures they would be <br /> converted over time to living quarters. He recalled that this was never the City's intent to allow <br /> living quarters above a garage. <br /> City Planner Anderson believed that the proposed language was strong enough that the City's <br /> requirements would be clear. <br /> Commissioner Nosan questioned why the City had this restriction in place. <br /> Community Development Director Gladhill stated the Commission could review this policy. It <br /> was his understanding that the City Council was not interested in allowing an accessory structure <br /> to become an accessory dwelling. <br /> Commissioner Nosan supported a homeowner having a two-story accessory structure. <br /> Planning Commission/March 2,2017 <br /> Page 13 of 15 <br />