227 people completed the City’s Accessory Dwelling Survey. The results show a community that is split on six of the nine elements, with strong disagreement on height, setback and the lack of an owner occupancy requirement.
The Planning Commission voted on key issues on Feb. 19. Owner occupancy, setbacks, and size were the most contentious, but views also diverged on the number of occupants. March 5th Public Hearing/Final Recommendations for Council.
Planning Commissioners continue to have issues with owner occupancy, size, height and setbacks of detached accessory dwellings – details that impact neighboring properties. No consensus was reached. The State Senate passed their AD bill.
Open houses were sparsely attended but vocal. Community concerns include the lack of owner occupancy, environmental issues, the one size fits all approach and no requirement to notify neighbors of construction plans.
At the urging of City Council and Planning Commission, staff reversed the decision to allow short-term rental in accessory dwellings, but made no changes to accommodate other concerns about impacts on neighbors, neighborhood and the environment.
Some on Council and Planning Commission have concerns about the proposed code that allows ADs up to two stories and 1,000sf, with no regulations on short-term rentals and occupancy nor parking review.
Caution is urged and there is a need for data analyses of housing, tax, privacy, parking and environmental impacts of the accessory dwelling code proposal. Public awareness and townhall attendance is low.
Staff proposed a framework of parameters to be specified in the zoning ordinance for accessory dwellings – size, setbacks, parking, occupancy, rental conditions, conversions. Staff recommended values/specifications for each parameter.
This post describes the questions raised during City organized community discussions and some board reviews on accessory dwellings. Several people suggested that a public survey of community views was needed.
