Laserfiche WebLink
7.B. - Page 6 <br /> Planning Commission Recommendation <br /> Planning Commission heard this item at their October 6, 2015 meeting. Approximately <br /> 10 people spoke regarding the proposed ordinance, and most were supportive of the <br /> changes. Two members of the public expressed concerns with privacy and the impact <br /> of a detached accessory dwelling unit on neighboring properties. One member of the <br /> public spoke in support of not requiring homeowners to live on-site, while others <br /> spoke in support of that requirement. <br /> Homeowner Residency Requirement. Under the current requirements, the <br /> homeowner is required to live in the main house (Section 37.2(E) of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance). At the previous meeting of September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission <br /> discussed allowing the homeowner to live in either the main house or the ADU in <br /> order to provide greater flexibility. At the October 6th meeting, staff asked that the <br /> Planning Commission consider the alternative of not requiring a homeowner to live on <br /> the property given the increasing cost of housing, the increasing percentage of renters <br /> in the region, and the challenges that may be presented to the City to code enforce <br /> property owners who are not in compliance. While the Planning Commission <br /> understood staff's concerns, in the effort to protect existing neighborhoods, the <br /> Planning Commission reached consensus that the homeowner should be required to <br /> live on the property either in the main house or the ADU. By having the homeowner <br /> on the property, the homeowner would be accessible if issues arise on the property <br /> and the property would be better kept. The attached ordinance has been drafted per <br /> the Planning Commission's recommendation. As an alternative (see below) the <br /> Council could consider adding an exception process to the ordinance, which would <br /> allow the owner to live offsite, and rent both units under certain circumstances <br /> (medical issues, job transfer, etc.). <br /> After discussion of the homeowner occupancy requirement, rear setbacks, and water <br /> main requirement, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 (Commissioners Borgens and <br /> Schmidt dissenting, and Commissioners Hale and White absent) to adopt the <br /> ordinance. Both Commissioner Schmidt and Commissioner Borgens expressed <br /> concerns with the 6-foot rear yard setback, and desired a larger setback requirement <br /> for the rear (see online video on October 6, 2015 at http://www.redwoodcity.org/city- <br /> hall/city-council/advisory-boards-commissions-and-committees/planning- <br /> commission/agendas-minutes for a full discussion). <br /> Please note that a subsection of Section 37.3(C)(5) (Square Footage and Number of <br /> Bedrooms) was deleted in the proposed ADU ordinance as presented to the Planning <br /> Commission because there was a duplication error in the development requirements. <br /> No substantive changes were made and the requirements are the same as presented <br /> to the Planning Commission. <br /> General Plan and Zoning Compliance <br /> This effort would further the City's Housing Element policies and programs that <br /> promote a variety of housing types that are accessible to all income levels. General <br /> Plan Housing Program H-12 directs staff to consider modifying regulations to <br /> Page 6 of 8 <br />