01 - Laserfiche WebLink

anywhere on the property and confirmed the City can pull an ADU into the building envelope so long as it does not restrict the construction of a unit. She also stated discretionary design review cannot be applied even if the addition is vertical and attached but the City could apply more stringent objective development standards to those ADUs. In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiries, Director Clark confirmed the 2012 Housing Element allowed for 25-foot detached ADUs above a garage and is being struck from the ordinance. She confirmed it would be up to the individual zoning district where height levels would lie. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Senior Planner Bonn clarified the code could be written in different ways but the staff's suggestion is solid fencing would not be required in areas where open fencing is required. Director Clark confirmed the Building Code deems floor-to-ceiling height of seven feet is habitable and advised the City would have to allow a front-yard ADU if there was no other place on the property to put it. Senior Planner Bonn confirmed the typical setback for a residential front door is 23 feet. Mayor Brown opened public comment. Anthony Bridenbaugh requested the City be flexible with homeowners adding onto their properties to create more housing especially if there are no significant impacts to neighbors. Jocelyn Combs commented ADUs are a simple elegant solution to affordable housing which helps the City reach its RHNA numbers with no public cost. She noted that extra controls can hurt constituents and asked the City Council to expand height, size, location, and other allowances. She expressed support for pre-approved designs, citing their popularity in other cities and cost savings to homeowners. She congratulated City Council and staff for their work on the CAFR. Vamshi expressed his confusion over what has been approved and revoked pertaining to grandfathered ADUs. He commented the ordinance could encourage him to turn his garage into an ADU as opposed to building above it which could create a parking problem for the City. In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Director Clark clarified the Walnut Hills PUD is unusual because second-story ADUs were approved as a part of the project but noted there was a clause indicating the number of ADUs at the time of construction would be the total allowed. She advised this condition is enforced through Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) and the confusion stems from when it was discussed with the Planning Commission and that second-story ADUs can be prohibited by the City consistent with the PUD and CC&Rs. In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Director Clark confirmed the January 19th decisions did not take anything away from Walnut Hills residents. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. Councilmember Narum expressed support for the changes and clarifications, and for staff to investigate pre-approved ADU designs and studying the benefits further. She commented she is struggling with ADUs over attached garages because a homeowner could build a spare bedroom or office but later convert it to an ADU and feels the City should allow ADUs over attached garages because of this loophole. She stated there are valid arguments on each side of the issue, but is leaning on the side of supporting ADUs over attached garages yet not detached garages. She called for a 12-month review of the ordinances due to unintended consequences on a complicated matter. Mayor Brown countered Councilmember Narum's hypothetical with the opposite situation of a homeowner building an ADU with the intent of using it as a home expansion and to never rent it out due to the ADU approval process being cheaper and easier. Councilmember Narum agreed this is a great City Council Minutes Page 7 of 17 February 16. 2021