5 - Laserfiche WebLink

The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the PMC and discussed several key elements of the proposed changes at its June 24, 2020, meeting. Enclosed as Exhibit A to this report is the draft ordinance amending the PMC, reflective of the Planning Commission's discussion, which is being provided to the Commission for its consideration and recommendation to City Council. BACKGROUND At its June 24, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed draft amendments to the PMC intended to implement state law that took effect January 2020 (please refer to the agenda report for this meeting, enclosed to this report as Exhibit C for background). To facilitate the Commission's review, staff suggested three discussion questions. Below is a brief summary of the general consensus among the Commission members regarding the discussion questions; draft minutes for the meeting are referenced as Exhibit D in this report (included as Item 3 in this agenda packet). A. Does the Planning Commission have any questions or comments, in general, with the proposed application and interpretation of state law with respect to ADUs? The Planning Commission had the following comments: • Expressed a desire to simplify the City's ordinance and adhere to the basic requirements of the state law as much as possible, without adding unnecessary complexity. • Noted that language regarding maximum permitted square footage for ADUs was confusing and overly complex and directed staff to clarify and simplify this section. • Requested staff to consider modifying the maximum permitted height for ADUs in the Central-Commercial (C-C) District — proposed to be consistent with the generally allowable height limit for accessory structures, 40 feet - such that the height of the ADU was less than or the same as the primary structure. • Requested clarification and background information on deed restrictions and owner- occupancy requirements for ADUs and sought more information on the total number of such deed-restricted ADUs. • One Planning Commissioner questioned whether an existing amenity space in a multifamily development (e.g. a recreation room) should be allowed to be converted to an ADU, particularly if it was not being utilized often. The draft ordinance called for limiting conversion of these types of spaces. B. Does the Planning Commission agree with staff's proposed objective standards for second story ADUs? The Planning Commission indicated that the objective standards for upper windows in two- story ADUs were too restrictive as proposed and directed staff to draft more flexible standards that would 1) Account for existing windows and 2) Allow more flexibility on placement and size of new windows. One Commissioner also commented that a provision for decorative balconies should be added to the standards. P20-0412, Accessory Dwelling Units Planning Commission 2 of 9 egulations. She explained staff decided on these standards, in the absence of being able to conduct design review, because they were the most common points of contention between neighbors. Commissioner O'Connor suggested looking at each unit individually instead of applying blanket standards. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 June 24, 2020 and ridges and ADUs measured from the ground to the top of the structure. Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 June 24, 2020 ing Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 June 24, 2020 e windows would have to be six feet above the finished floor or have obscured glass. Ms. Clark further noted, it might be reasonable to develop exceptions for existing windows to allow for those windows to be the same size, shape, and height. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 June 24, 2020