Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2020

Home

Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that the conditional use permit template has a findings of fact sheet which outlines items related to this language. She stated that rather than be included in the code, the information would be included on the findings of fact sheet. Commissioner Anderson referenced section 12, accessory building location, noting that lots greater than two acres are mentioned that could have a building height of 22 feet. He noted the section D then talks about lots less than two acres but does not specify a maximum height. He believed that 16 feet or the height of the principle building should be specified. He stated that he would not want to see a multi-story house with a multi-story accessory building. Planning Consultant Maass stated that for lots under two acres, the height limit for accessory buildings would be found in the specific zoning district. He noted that those heights are limited to 16 feet, the language is simply found in another location of the code. Commissioner Anderson stated that he would want to ensure that the height limit is included for lots under two acres at 16 feet or the height of the principle dwelling unit, whichever is less. He asked for details on a requirement related to accessory buildings and potential future subdivisions. Planning Consultant Maass provided additional clarification on the code requirement language. He stated that staff has found the rule to not be practical to implement on residents and therefore is requesting to remove the language. Commissioner Anderson stated that he would simply want to ensure that residents are informed that if they want to subdivide in the future and the accessory building is located on the area proposed to be split, the structure would need to be removed. Commissioner Woestehoff stated that perhaps an information sheet could be developed that would include that information for applicants to consider and agreed that the requirement should be removed from code. Councilmember Musgrove asked for clarification on certain items and it was confirmed those language changes were proposed to reduce redundancy as the information is found in other areas of the code. She commented that as someone that is not fully knowledgeable in this area, she finds the charts/graphs easier to understand. Commissioner Anderson stated that perhaps in the future, the Commission could consider allowing an accessory structure to remain after subdivision for a length of time. He stated that would allow someone to keep the accessory building while building a home, rather than requiring the building to be torn down only to rebuild. Commissioner Woestehoff commented that there are tools in the City code which would allow for that activity and provided an example the Commission recently considered. Citizen Input Planning Commission/ July 9, 2020 Page 5 of 9