Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />OCTOBER 14, 2021 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Christian Torkelson, 2995 Vanderbie Street, referenced the proposed minimum lot sizes for <br />ADUs, noting that it would be nice to see that size paired down slightly in R-1 and R-2 in order <br />to provide the opportunity to more residents. He provided a chart with suggested lot sizes for R- <br />1 and R-2 for both attached and detached ADUs. He stated that he would propose to keep R-3 as <br />drafted. He felt that the changes would allow this opportunity to be more accessible to more <br />residents. He referenced the section which specifies a maximum size for an accessory dwelling <br />unit. He stated if the space is added above a garage, it may then exceed 700 square feet in order <br />to match the footprint. He stated that he would propose to use the existing garage size thresholds <br />along with the maximum structure coverage limitations in order to determine the maximum size <br />for an ADU. <br /> <br />Karen Ryan, 2570 McMenemy Street, stated that she has been contemplating an ADU on her <br />property for 20 years and agrees that 700 square feet or 40 percent of the dwelling size is very <br />restrictive. She commented that she was not aware of a senior that would be comfortable living <br />in a studio size space. She agreed with the recommendations suggested by the previous speaker <br />to use lot coverage. She asked for clarification on the definition of rear lot, compared to side lot. <br />She stated that she would like to build an ADU on one end of the lot, with the principal home on <br />the other side and therefore would like to have a driveway into the ADU to prevent a situation <br />where someone needs to walk from the driveway, across the lot, to the ADU. <br /> <br />Jill Winegar, 707 Labore Road, stated that she also shares the comments of the first speaker. She <br />stated that she has a small home with a large lot and therefore the 40 percent limitation would <br />only allow her to have an ADU of 340 square feet in size. She desired a different way to <br />calculate the allowed size of an ADU in order to be proportionate to the property. She stated that <br />she also agrees that if an ADU is constructed above a garage, it should match the footprint of the <br />garage and not be a smaller portion of that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Quarles stated that there are other municipalities which use the language, not in <br />the front yard rather than using rear or side yard. She stated that she would also support using <br />the lot coverage percentage as a regulator for size of an ADU. She stated that she would use the <br />existing read and side yard setbacks. She noted that she does not have an opinion at this time <br />related to parking. She stated that the City is allowing this type of use on smaller lots, which <br />also means that standards have to be tight in order to ensure the use would fit onto the property <br />in a proportionate manner. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thorson stated that he agrees that the parameters for allowed ADU size are <br />restrictive and would support using the methods mentioned by the residents. He asked if <br />driveways would be allowed for an ADU. <br /> <br />Planning Consultant Bill Weber stated that the language currently does not allow a second <br />driveway for an ADU, as the use is meant to be accessory rather than a second dwelling with its <br />own access.