Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner Wright asked Mr. Byrd if he anticipates living in the house when it is done. <br />Mr. Byrd replied that at this time he did not know whether he and is family would live in it <br />or not. <br /> <br />Mr. Byrd stated that he agrees to all the Conditions of Approval. <br /> <br />Monty Berney, 4198 Remillard Court, spoke in opposition to the a lication. He said his <br />home is south of the proposed project. He felt that the proposed pr ~ect was not going to be <br />anything but a rental, and that if it is approved, there would be oth r large homes in the area <br />that would do the same thing. He encouraged the Commission to e a hard look at this <br />situation. He was also concerned about the fact that they are splitti g addresses, which <br />makes it more useable for rental units. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Todd Davis, 4174 Remillard Court, stated he lives adjacent to the roposed project and <br />spoke in opposition to the project. He felt the plans are two compl tely different projects. <br />He stated when he bought his lot he was told all homes must be si Ie-family homes. He <br />felt this was simply going against the concept of a second unit. H said he could appreciate <br />the concept of a granny flat, but felt that the proposed unit was a isinterpretation of that <br />term. He thought that renting to a party who was not family could run into too many <br />problems. He felt that in living next to a home that has a rental u 't, they would encounter <br />the same problems as the home owner would. <br /> <br /> <br />Oposed are required to <br />lpolice department <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh explained to Mr. Berney that units such as the <br />have separate addresses in the event of an emergency so that the fi <br />would know exactly where to go. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift further pointed out that at least one of the units must be <br />whether it be Mr. Byrd who builds it or someone he may sell it to. <br />rented out, even to someone other than family if the other unit is 0 <br /> <br />cupied by the owner, <br />The second unit can be <br />ner-occupied. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk felt it might be time for the Commission d staff to look at the <br />matter of second units again. In response to Commissioner McGui k's question, Mr. Swift <br />replied that the application is for a conditional use permit. If this rmit is violated the <br />permit can be revoked. Violation of the permit would mean that 0 e of the units is not <br />owner-occupied. He further noted the City has experienced no pr lems or complaints with <br />secondary units, which was anticipated to be a good way to obtain some cheaper rentals. If <br />the permit is violated, the City has recourse to revoke the use per it; at that point the second <br />unit would not be allowed for use as a rental. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift further addressed Commissioner McGuirk's concern reg ding possible violation <br />of the second unit. He stated there are certain parking regulations that are allowed under <br />State law. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes September 23. 1992 <br /> <br />Page 10 <br />