Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 04 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 13, 2025 Page 7 of 8 Baskett said that she would be in favor of adding this. Moline asked why staff settled on the 800 and 1,000 square footages. Hirt said that staff felt it was a reasonable amount and was one that had been used by other cities. An 800 square foot unit, for example, can adequately accommodate a two bedroom unit. Mihaly asked to confirm whether the lot coverage and setback variance allowance for Marshall Fire rebuilds was 10%. Zuccaro said yes. Mihaly asked about the maximum expected occupancy for an 800 square foot and a 1,000 square foot residential unit. Zuccaro said that it would depend on the number of bedrooms. Mihaly asked about how much available capacity was in the City's water system, and how many additional units it could currently support. Zuccaro said he was not sure of the exact capacity, but noted that the City's utilities team had planned for growth in the City and there is additional capacity. Bangs asked whether staff thought the inclusionary housing ordinance should be applied to ADUs. Zuccaro said that one aspect of the ordinance was to have the affordable units be of a similar nature to the base units, which would not be the case with an ADU. He added that staff were preparing an update to the inclusionary housing ordinance. There was an extended discussion about the potential water tap fees for new ADU units, and the degree to which they should be applied. Staff noted that this was not directly within the purview of the Commission but said that the Commission could still make a recommendation to Council. The consensus among the Commission was that reducing the fees or finding some alternative merited some consideration. There was also further discussion about allowing additional ADU square footage for accessible units for those with disabilities. Zuccaro noted that a 10% variance was already allowed through administrative review under the zoning code with reference to the Fair Housing Act, but that the Commission could opt to make it automatic with ADUs. There was a consensus among Commissioners in support of including this as a condition for the ordinance. There was discussion about the size limitations, and whether they were appropriate to keep. Some Commissioners agreed that it was important to keep the 49% size restriction so that the ADUs remained secondary in size to the primary unit, and that the ordinance was not intended to broadly allow the construction of duplexes. Choi and Bangs dissented and said that they would prefer that the ADU simply be required to be smaller than the primary residence.