PC Minutes 10/23/06 – DRAFT

ITEM NO. 7:              REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)

TA-09-09-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct

inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by the Planning Commission on 9/25/06.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Joe Rexwinkle introduced the text amendment. TA-09-09-06 represents specific amendments to various articles as outlined in the Staff Report. The revisions were initiated by the Planning Commission at the September 25th meeting.

 

Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-09-09-06] to Articles 2, 5 and 9 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission. 

 

Commissioner Harris stated that she hadn’t had a chance to read the League of Women Voters letter yet and asked if Rexwinkle could summarize it.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle summarized the letter that states the proposed wording change indicates that a detached garage could be completely converted to an accessory dwelling, not as an addition to but as a substitute use for a garage.

 

Commissioner Harris asked if parking would be eliminated.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated that if the garage is eliminated then they would not be able to use that space for parking.

 

Commissioner Harris inquired if the 2 off street parking spaces that are allowed include accessory dwelling.

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated that if the accessory dwelling unit is built on a local street built to City standards then there is no additional street parking required. She went on to say that if you read the entire section there are additional design standards that seem to indicate that a new detached accessory dwelling unit could be constructed but an owner can not convert an existing garage. It does not seem logical that you could do one and not the other. They do not have to be attached to principal house. A detached dwelling could be the accessory dwelling.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if a dwelling unit being added would double the density and if it would be an issue.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said that accessory dwelling units are only allowed in the RS7 or larger districts and that they are not permitted in RS3 or RS5 districts. It does allow higher density.

 

Commissioner Harkins asked if this situation happens very often in the city.

Stogsdill stated that this is a new provision of the new code and that there is a process that outlines the registration before someone can have an accessory dwelling. One of the two units must be owner occupied.

 

Commissioner Harkins inquired if this would support elderly parents in the future.

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated there are many different options discussed to keep homeowners in the neighborhood. It could be an elderly parent or a nanny, for example.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn questioned if the 960 total square feet was the total or if that meant finished square feet.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said no more than 960 square feet but that it could defined as net or gross square feet.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Betty Lichtwardt, member of the ZAC committee, stated that it was her suggestion to add the possibility of accessory dwelling to allow the elderly to stay in the home. She went on to say that it was a concept that was not accepted by the real estate people on the committee and that the idea was to be able to incorporate a portion of the house to add an accessory dwelling. The concept of a detached garage was adopted based on the idea for areas that are supporting public transit. The buildings are designed for single families but also detached garage with an accessory dwelling on top of the garage. The idea was to make living more affordable. Lichtwardt feels that it is an interpretation over and above what does not exist in the code and that staff interpretation expands the concept. (she showed the Commissioners diagrams of example houses)

 

Commissioner Harkins asks Lichtwardt about the diagram showing the whole network of residences designed with a unit behind.

 

Ms. Lichtwardt stated that this would allow an internal dwelling above the garage.

 

Commissioner Erickson asked if Lichtwardt felt the location above the garage would limit the elderly from living there.

 

Ms. Lichtwardt stated that the definition of accessory dwelling includes a portion of an existing house to be used as a dwelling. She does not want staff to extend the definition beyond what the code says.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if Lichtwardt interpreted the code (20-534(2)(iii)(c) to have 3 separate types.

 

Ms. Lichtwardt said yes, A, B and C and that there is not a detached dwelling in any of the 3.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Eichhorn said that he would also like to strike the attached garage. He thinks there are a few people in the community will think this is a step too far.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if that would require a different text amendment.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that it was for the Commission to discuss.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei said that he supported staff’s recommendation and thinks they are right in keeping with that idea.

 

Commissioner Burress posed the question of having new stand alone buildings popping up behind houses. He agreed with Lichtwardt and stated that every dwelling is either attached or detached. He also pointed out that codes would need to be written for specifications, such as how tall the dwelling could be.

 

Commissioner Krebs asked Burress about his opinion on the text amendment to convert an existing building and if there should be a stipulation about not building a second garage.

 

Commissioner Burress said that he did not think it should be allowed and that the language already allows for a garage.

 

Commissioner Krebs stated that there have been quite a few different interpretations of the language and that the Commission needs to discuss what they would want.

 

Commissioner Harkins said that he has seen hundreds of these buildings in other cities and that they are doing extremely well and that you can not tell there is a separate living area above the garage. He would be pleased if they could encourage that kind of construction in Lawrence and that the ones that are the most functional are the ones attached to the garage. He stated that they need to be extremely exact about the details because this type of thing should be done right or not done at all.

 

Commissioner Krebs stated that the Commission needed to come to a consensus as to what is appropriate. She recapped each issue that had been discussed thus far:

-        Parking element of the garage should be retained

-        Freestanding versus converted

-        Can new space be constructed

 

Commissioner Haase said that the Commission should provide broad direction to staff and see what they can find in other cities so that the language can be well thought out. His recommendation was for staff to do more homework and report the findings to the Commission.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said that staff went by the language that has been drafted and that she would prefer the Commission give staff more direction. She went on to say that if the Commission does not want to see new detached accessory dwelling units then to tell staff that.

 

Commissioner Burress stated that he does not want freestanding detached accessory dwelling unit.

 

Commissioner Jennings said that older homes set on the lot where the driveway was meant to go back to the garage. In newer areas, one may not be able to do this because there would not be room for a freestanding unit.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about possible abuse of the system by giving the example of Western Hills moving one house on a corner and building two more.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei said that he understood Commissioner Eichhorn’s concern but that they should allow detached dwelling units. He felt they should direct staff to look into design standards that tighten up standards for location of the unit.

 

Commissioner Harris pointed out that when a garage is taken away storage is also lost which may lead to more sheds being used for storage.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to recommend approval of the amendment to Article 2 and defer the proposed amendment to Article 5 based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and discussion by the Planning Commission.

 

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.