Discussion Regarding Two Story Accessory Buildings; City Code Section 117-349

Recently, City Staff received an application for a two-story accessory building, which has brought about lengthy discussions about the standards that apply to such structures. While City Code allows for two-story accessory buildings, either by right (on parcels two [2] acres or larger and outside the MUSA) or through the issuance of a conditional use permit, there is no provision for such structures to deviate from the height limitation for accessory buildings (either sixteen [16] or twenty-fwo [22] feet), without the issuance of a variance.

A two story accessory structure being approved through a conditional use permit was originally put into place due to oversized attics that contained enough room between the floor and the ceiling that Building Code deemed the attic space a second story even though from the exterior the structure did not appear to have a full two (2) levels. This is the reason for the height limitation remaining at sixteen (16) feet for two story accessory buildings on parcels less than two (2) acres rather than allowing for additional height allowances at this time.

Staff would like to have a discussion on this topic to determine if a text amendment that would allow for an increase in accessory building height for a two-story accessory building is warranted.  Note, City Staff is not advocating for or recommending that an amendment is needed.  There are several items to consider:

1. What does the Planning Commission feel was the intention of allowing a two (2) story accessory buildings: to accommodate a 'bonus room' or if it was to truly allow for two (2) full stories?
2. Would allowing a deviation from height standards by Conditional Use Permit rather than by Variance be a more appropriate tool to address accessory building height (similar to how deviations to sign standards are addressed)?

Addressing the two above points will indicate whether a text amendment should be contemplated.  However, Staff also wanted to raise a potential concern related to two (2) story accessory buildings being converted to an accessory dwelling unit (complete independent living facilities entirely isolated from the primary dwelling unit).  If the intention is to allow a true, two (2) story building, Staff would need to work with the City Attorney to develop proper and enforceable language prohibiting converting these into accessory dwelling units.  That is, unless that is something the Planning Commission believes is worth exploring as well.

No additional notification beyond the meeting date and agenda were sent out as a result of this agenda item.

This is being handled as part of Staff's regular duties.

Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission as to whether or not a text amendment should be pursued.  If the Planning Commission feels that this conversation warrants further discussion and that a draft text amendment should be drafted, Staff would ask that the Planning Commission provide such direction.

Direct Staff as to whether or not a text amendment should be drafted based on discussion held during the March meeting for future consideration by the Planning Commission.