Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 04 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 13, 2025 Page 6 of 8 and that it would help diversify the City's housing stock. She was in support of the proposal. Michael Perkins, resident, asked about the proposed utility fees. He questioned whether there should be an additional tap fee if the total number of people using the utilities was not proposed to change. Andy Johnson, resident, noted that the nature of this ADU ordinance is to comply with state law and supported the proposed ordinance. As an architect, he is consistently telling people they currently can't have an ADU and there is a need for such units in the community. He questioned whether the ADU ordinance is an appropriate place to address compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance. Staff closing statement: Hirt clarified that existing units that meet features of an ADU under the proposed ordinance are proposed to have a grace period to come into compliance. Such grace period would address units that may not meet all the standards and include a life safety inspection of the unit so it can obtain legal nonconforming status. Commissioner Discussion: Mihaly asked about the existing parking requirements for primary units, and asked how that would impact ADUs. Hirt said that this was to reflect the possibility of circumstances where on street parking was not available. There was a discussion about when the City could require parking for an ADU, with clarification that it was only under a very narrow set of circumstances. Of note was that an ADU that eliminated the required parking spaces for the primary single family unit would not be allowed under the zoning code, using the example of proposing to convert a garage into an ADU. Choi asked which building design standards, such as those related to energy efficiency, ADUs would be required to comply with. Hirt said that they would have the same requirements as other residential units. Zuccaro added that there could be some exceptions for production built homes or tiny homes. Bangs asked about the difference between square footage and lot coverage. Hirt said that lot coverage requirements superseded the square footage requirements. Bangs asked for staff's opinion on allowing an additional 10% lot coverage for accessibility purposes. Hirt said that they were open to it.