Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017

Home

Investment (ROI) for a standard residential system could be realized relatively quickly, maybe in as few as two to four years (and would be even quicker on larger, commercial systems). City Planner Anderson reported as water supply continues to be a prominent concern for the City and as the `smart' technologies become more commonplace (and therefore with prices coming down), the EPB believes that requiring water efficient technologies is appropriate. However, the EPB has also noted that they want to ensure that this is enforceable. Thus, staff is still assessing how the water efficient requirement could be verified in the field. At this time, it does not appear that it could be addressed through any existing inspection. Additional review is still needed on this aspect. Commission Business Chairperson Bauer supported the City being proactive on the City's water usage and its proper management. Commissioner Anderson agreed. Commissioner VanScoy also supported the City addressing this issue and asked if the proposed plan went far enough. He questioned if something other than sod should be considered in order to reduce the City's dependence on water. City Planner Anderson stated this was an excellent point. He discussed a portion of City Code regarding the use of native plantings and how the City was working to address landscaping that required less chemicals and water. He indicated the EPB was hoping to get something in place prior to the 2017 construction season. Chairperson Bauer thanked City Planner Anderson for the update on this item. 5.04: Discussion Regarding Two Story Accessory Buildings; City Code Section 117-349. Presentation City Planner Anderson presented the staff report stating Recently, City Staff received an application for a two-story accessory building, which has brought about lengthy discussions about the standards that apply to such structures. While City Code allows for two-story accessory buildings, either by right (on parcels two [2] acres or larger and outside the MUSA) or through the issuance of a conditional use permit, there is no provision for such structures to deviate from the height limitation for accessory buildings (either sixteen [16] or twenty-two [22] feet), without the issuance of a variance. He explained a two-story accessory structure being approved through a conditional use permit was originally put into place due to oversized attics that contained enough room between the floor and the ceiling that Building Code deemed the attic space a second story even though from the exterior the structure did not appear to have a full two (2) levels. This is the reason for the height limitation remaining at sixteen (16) feet for two story Planning Commission/March 2, 2017 Page 12 of 15