AgdaPkt 2003-10-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

IO,��' Mr. Church said no. He said a lot of the cities try to impose affordabiliry requirements on accessory dwellings, but it has had little success over the long haul. Ms. Ekas said that some cities require that deed restrictions be filed on the property when an accessory dwelling is created which would have some cross language requiring �ne of the units be owner-occupied. Mr. Church gave a brief summary of Text Amendment — Article 41 (Amendments). Amendments Mr. Church said the only change is what Mr. Brower (Assistant City Attorney) has inserted into the existing text, enabling staff to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brower said this Text Amendment will not change the fact that all Zoning Amendments will still be brought before the Planning Commission for recommendation and then to Council for action. Acting Chair Piul�e referred to the language on Circle Page 21 (very bottom), which states, "... and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if written request is made by the applicant within five (5) days..." She said usually there is a seven (7) day appeal, and wanted to know why this is a shorter appeal time. Mr. Brower said that language was in the original Code section, and hasn't been changed. Acting Chair Piulle referred to Circle Page 19, 41.5-B, which states: "The Commission -- shall hold a public hearing on the staff initiated amendment within fifty (50) days of the date of filing". She wanted to know when the filing date is established, and where does the filing date appear so the public knows. Mr. Brower said it occurs or commences when the matter is brought before the PLANNING COMMISSION. He pointed out the corresponding provisions on Circle Page 19, 41.4C, and on Circle Page 18, 41.3A , with similar time limits. Acting Chair Piulle opened the public hearing for all the Amendments. SPEAKERS: Ms. Janet Borgens representing the Housing and Human Concerns Committee, asked if the 640 square feet for an accessory dwelling met the ADA requirements, and is it large . enough in case occupant needed a live=in caregiver. She wanted to know if there was any flexibility in the language as to the square footage. Ms. Borgens also commented on the usual 10-year period that developers put on a condominium project for affordable tiving. If a Senior buys into the project at an affordable level, and after the 10 years is up, the developer decides to raise the price, this makes it difficult for Seniors. Ms. Borgens wanted the Planning Commission to give that some thought, because, Senior incomes do not go up. Commissioner McCoy advised Ms. Borgens that the original concept of the "mother in- law unit was where a younger family living in the principle residence and needs a place „ — for mom to live. In that case, it is the cottage that is attached or detached, but the Page 6 of 15