Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SUP Accessory Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs Special Use Permit pathway for oversized accessory buildings, cites enforcement trade-offs
Summary
Commissioners and staff debated requiring SUPs for accessory buildings larger than the primary house, arguing SUPs provide discretionary review and written conditions that can withstand legal challenge while commissioners warned about backlog and fairness concerns.
Staff recommended that accessory buildings larger than the main structure be subject to a Special Use Permit (SUP) so the city can apply prewritten conditions and retain discretionary control; staff argued that written conditions improve legal defensibility in case of court challenge. "If you want to have a pool house, an SUP would be appropriate... With an SUP, you still get the option to look at it and say yes or no," Development Services Director Joe Hilborn said.
Commissioners split between the desire to preserve homeowner freedoms and the need for neighborhood protections. One commissioner warned SUPs could create a backlog: "If you start wanting SUPs on everything... there can be a big backlog." Staff acknowledged the workload but reiterated that SUPs let neighbors be heard and let the commission set conditions that survive legal scrutiny.
Outcome: staff agreed to draft SUP language for accessory buildings larger than the main structure and present options (criteria, process, expected timelines) at the next meeting.
