After the Mayor’s override announcement and presentation, the City Council resumed its meeting to address items deferred from the previous meeting. The first item discussed was proposal to amend the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance (see Fig City News article). After Chair Crossley gave the Zoning and Planning Report, Councilor Baker provided a brief slide presentation describing the background of the ordinance and provided an example of how Councilor Kalis’s street could be affected if detached ADUs were built using the proposed setbacks. He proposed two amendments to the proposal for the Councils consideration:
- Retain current setback requirements: Allow detached units by right within the regular setback but require special permit approval to go within the setback requirement; and
- Preserve the 4-year look-back period.
The debate on the setback requirements lasted well over an hour. Councilors speaking in favor (Baker, Wright, Laredo, Malakie, Oliver, Kalis, Lucas, Gentile, and Markiewicz) talked about how the amendment “makes sense” (Laredo) and does not prevent building within the setback (as it would just require a special permit), allows the Council and the neighbors to be part of the conversation and have a voice, and that the reason that these ADUs are rare is not the special permit process itself but the “economics” of building them (Markiewicz) and the process after the special permit is approved such as permitting requirements for ISD and Engineering (Gentile).
Councilors speaking against Baker’s amendments (Danberg, Kelley, Downs, Humphrey, Noel, Bowman, Grossman, Ryan, Lipof, Leary, Greenberg, and Crossley) emphasized the importance of making the process easier, that the current side setbacks in all but SR1 Districts are 7.5 feet from the lot line (Crossley, Grossman), that developers can build up to 2.5 – 3 stories and 36 feet from the current setback (as was the case for Councilor Ryan), that neighbors “may want the right of approval over what their neighbors are doing but they don’t want neighbors to have the right of approval over what they are doing,” (Humphrey), and that “by supporting Baker’s amendments, you are effectively making it much more difficult for homeowners that have smaller properties to build ADUs for their families with adult children with special needs or aging parents…” adding: “This is what we’ve been asking for, less impactful housing, smaller housing, more energy efficient, that supports families often through difficult circumstances aren’t money makers this is really meeting human needs.”(Leary)
During the discussion, Councilor Malakie brought in a 20+ft tree pruner to illustrate how high almost 22 feet is when it is 7.5 feet away from you. Councilors Noel and Crossley did not appreciate what they referred to as “props,” with Councilor Noel stating that “all it effectively proved is that building an ADU in the Chamber would be silly.”
The vote on Baker’s setback amendments was 9 in favor (Baker, Gentile, Laredo, Lucas, Malakie, Markiewicz, Norton, Oliver, Wright) and 15 opposed (Bowman, Crossley, Danberg, Downs, Greenberg, Grossman, Humphrey, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Leary Lipof, Noel, Ryan, and Albright).
The discussion was shorter on Baker’s second amendment, to add back the 4-year lookback requirement. Councilors who spoke in favor (Laredo and Lucas) were concerned that the removal of this provision would encourage teardowns. Councilors speaking against (Ryan, Lipof, Crossley, Humphrey) argued that reinserting the lookback requirement hurts only residents, not developers (Ryan), and that removal would allow residents to build into their plans (Lipof) and avoid having to make expensive retrofits down the road (Crossley), adding that removal of the lookback provision helps “where someone already lives there and has a major life change” (Humphrey). The vote was 6 in favor (Baker, Gentile, Laredo, Lucas, Malakie, Wright) and 18 opposed (Bowman, Crossley, Danberg, Downs, Greenberg, Grossman, Humphrey, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Leary, Lipof, Markiewicz, Noel, Norton, Oliver, Ryan, Albright).
Councilor Gentile submitted a handwritten amendment requesting a reporting requirement to acquire data tracking the number of new applications, special permit/by right, how many are approved, and when they received their certificate of occupancy. The amendment (which was amended for a 12- 24-month reporting requirement) failed with a tie vote, with 12 voting in favor (Baker, Gentile, Greenberg, Kalis, Krintzman, Leary, Lipof, Lucas, Markiewicz, Norton, Oliver, Wright) and 12 voting against (Bowman, Crossley, Danberg, Downs, Grossman, Humphrey, Kelley, Laredo, Malakie, Noel, Ryan, Albright).
On the main item, to adopt the Zoning and Planning Committee’s recommended amendments, the item passed 19 in favor (Bowman, Crossley, Danberg, Downs, Greenberg, Grossman, Humphrey, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Laredo, Leary, Lipof, Markiewicz, Noel, Norton, Oliver, Ryan, Albright), 4 opposed (Baker, Lucas, Malakie, Wright), and 1 absent (Gentile).
NewTV’s video of the meeting is here.
