CCMIN 02162021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Balch noted there were only 15 second-story ADUs approved over the past decade; that the State is looking to allow for the complete remaking of residential properties without any local oversight and that allowing for an ADU might avert the need for this. He advised ADUs are the lowest- impact solution for additional housing in the community and allowing second-story ADUs has helped meet the community's housing challenges. He said he has received community feedback supporting second-story ADUs. Councilmember Balch restated a January 19th comment from Mayor Brown that there are some good and some bad second-floor ADUs. He advised he agrees with both this and her notion of the concerns of neighbors being real. Councilmember Balch expressed support for second-story ADUs with objective design standards. He believes objective design standards can strike a balance between the need for neighborly privacy with the need for a more consistent architecturally designed ADUs while preserving as much on-site parking as possible. Eliminating second-floor ADUs can exacerbate parking issues because homeowners will now look to build ground-level units. He added it could eliminate owners of smaller lots from having an ADU, which he believes is disingenuous. The State could interpret this restriction as being outside the spirit of the law and could be challenged Mayor Brown expressed support of ADUs and would like to see new construction come with ADUs calling the Walnut Hills model a wonderful solution to help affordable housing. She commented those ADUs look like they belong as opposed to being unattractive expansions. Councilmember Arkin commented she would like to strike the balance of allowing ADUs while preserving the character of neighborhoods. In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiries, Director Clark confirmed the City has to allow two-story ADUs up to 16 feet and the height threshold would not apply if an existing structure is converted into an ADU. She also confirmed owner-occupancy cannot be required for ADUs approved from 2020-25 but the City can enforce previously-existing deed restrictions. In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, City Attorney Dan Sodergren clarified any modifications to the ordinance would have to come back to Council for final adoption. In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiry. City Attorney Sodergren advised he has no issue with the language change from "any" to "all." Councilmember Arkin moved to approve ADUs greater than 16 feet in new PUDs, corner lot setbacks, landscape screening, ADU pre-approved designs, the two changes from "any" to "all," second story approvals limited to 16 feet except where mandated by law, adopting the State's 850 and 1,000 square foot restrictions. and continuing to enforce existing owner-occupancy requirements and add an exemption to the size restrictions for conversions of existing spaces. Councilemember Arkin seconded the motion. Councilmember Narum advised she could not support grandfathering the owner-occupancy requirement due to the inconsistency and lack of fairness. She supports attached second-story ADUs; the 1,000 square foot limit, and the specific design criteria for ADU conversions over garages, including windowsill height and placement, and a 12-month review of the process. Mayor Brown advised the current window with no grandfather clause relative to owner-occupancy is due to state law and the City should not feel obligated to change their own if not required. Councilmember Arkin agreed to add a 12-month City Council review to her motion. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 16 February 16. 2021