Laserfiche WebLink
<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 /> <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 /> <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 the <br />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 /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer asked if staff was aware of the intended use for the second story of the <br />proposed accessory structure. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson stated the second story was labeled storage/shop. <br /> <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 /> <br />City Planner Anderson believed that the proposed language was strong enough that the City’s <br />requirements would be clear. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nosan questioned why the City had this restriction in place. <br /> <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 /> <br />Commissioner Nosan supported a homeowner having a two-story accessory structure. <br /> <br /> <br />Planning Commission/March 2, 2017 <br />Page 13 of 15 <br /> <br />