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