04-28-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued Page 2 April 23, 1997 Jim Bruce Request for Clarification of Council Action Regarding Fox Hollow Subdivision Jeanne also indicated the City had changed its policy regarding the use of an existing residential structure as an accessory structure when a new residence is to be constructed. She indicated the Council had determined that in order for an existing house to remain as an accessory structure to a new house the heating and plumbing fixtures had to be removed. She also indicated Council had directed staff to look into the accessory structure issue and provide a report and recommendations to the Council. Based on Jeanne's understanding of the Planning Commission action and the Council action, she indicated the use of the existing cottage as an accessory structure had not been approved. Summary of Applicable Cit\' Code Although the applicant proposes to retain the cottage as an accessory structure rather than as a guest house, the tw'o are closely related. In fact, a guest house is an accessory structure. The definition of guest house is as follows: "A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal building including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. " The difference between a guest house accessoty structure and an accessory structure is that the guest house, with a conditional use permit, can be a separate dwelling. The staff and Council have had a number of discussions regarding w hen an accessory structure is a separate dwelling. At one point the City focused on the existence or absence of a kitchen as a key determinant. More recently the City has focused on whether the structure has plumbing, particularly toilet and shower facilities. A memo from Mike GafTron discussing this issue is attached. Attachments The attachments to this memo include excerpts from staff reports and Planning Commission minutes as well as correspondence between Mr. Bruce and Jeanne Mabusth. The staff memos do not indicate opposition to the use of the cottage as an accessory structure within conditions specified. There is no discussion in the Planning Commission minutes that indicates opposition to the proposal related to the accessory structure. It is unclear why the Planning Commission action did not include a recommendation regarding the use of the cottage as an accessory structure. Applicant’s Understanding of Cit>' Action The applicant understood both the Planning Commission recommendation for approval and the City Council's approval of the subdivision to include approval of the use of the accessory structure with the condition that the kitchen be removed and that covenants be recorded against the properly to prohibit the use of the accessory structure as an independent dwelling unit.