Laserfiche WebLink
Mr.. Freeman reviewed the key components and definition of an accessory single family <br />dwelling unit. Mr. Freeman summarized the proposed changes and explained this <br />proposal would increase the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit and would allow <br />for a second accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Freeman pointed out the maximum separation <br />requirement would also be increased on larger parcels. Mr. Freeman reviewed the <br />prohibitions being added for accessory dwelling units which include no operation as a <br />vacation rental; no commercial use or home occupation allowed; and no mobile homes <br />or RV's can be used as the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Freeman noted that community <br />feedback has been positive on this issue and discussed some visioning implementation <br />principles that are being created as a result of the Visioning Study, Mr. Freeman <br />concluded his presentation by recommending the Planning and Zoning Commission <br />recommend the BCC adopt the proposed changes for Accessory Dwelling Units Sec. <br />971.41 (10). <br />Chairman Day asked if there were any commissioner questions. <br />Ms. Mitchell commented that she has been involved with the senior housing issue and is <br />in favor of this idea but hopes it is not the only change. Mr. Freeman explained that this <br />issue came to the forefront most likely because it is easy to implement and there could <br />be further changes implemented in the future as a result of the study. There was <br />discussion about the prohibited vacation rental component. Deputy County Attorney <br />William DeBraal explained that any vacation rental ordinance complaints would be <br />handled through Code Enforcement and that he felt it was effective enforcement and <br />control. <br />Mr. Mucher asked for clarification that the accessory dwelling units would be allowed to <br />be rented. Mr. Sweeney responded that it is allowed and considered a separate rentable <br />unit and that in many cases they are rented to family members. Mr. Phil Matson, IRC's <br />Director of Community Development commented that it is similar to renting out a room in <br />your house. The rules in regard to Homestead protection and the regulation of home <br />businesses were discussed. Mr. DeBraal explained that regulation of businesses is <br />allowed to state standards and clarified that operating a business out of the accessory <br />dwelling structure is prohibited in the proposed amendment. <br />Mr. Sweeney provided an overview of IRC's position on vacation rentals. Mr. DeBraal <br />reiterated that use of the accessory dwelling as a vacation rental is prohibited in the <br />amendment. Mr. Matson, working in conjunction with Chief of Code Enforcement and <br />Environment Planning Rebeca Guerra, explained the accessory dwelling unit application <br />stipulates that it be used as a primary dwelling. Mr. Matson reviewed the benefits of <br />accessory dwelling units noting it is an affordable housing option and is increasingly <br />popular with multi -generational families. Mr. Matson clarified that accessory dwelling units <br />are currently not allowed to be used for vacation rentals and explained that this is enforced <br />through Code Enforcement with the help of a software program used to find unpermitted <br />vacation rentals. <br />PZC Unapproved Draft Minutes 3 June 9, 2022 <br />101 <br />