The Zoning ReWrite
Missoula City Council Compromises on Zoning Controversy
By Travis Koch, 6-26-09
The divisions within the Missoula City Council were on full display this week as members tried to move past the most contentious issue in the new zoning rewrite, voting 8-4 on Wednesday morning to strike a provision that would have allowed so-called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) - essentially additional living spaces on existing lots - to be built in single-family zoning districts.
“This was the big political thing,” said Bob Jaffe, who chairs the Plat, Amendment and Zoning committee and voted against the motion to prohibit ADUs. Jaffe said that now the committee could focus on the remaining issues, including minimum lot sizes and maximum building heights.
Ward 4 representative Jon Wilkins introduced the motion prohibiting ADUs in all single-family zones, and Stacy Rye of Ward 3 introduced a motion allowing ADU’s to be built “by right” in all districts that are zoned multi-family. Both motions passed.
“If you ask me how I feel about Stacy’s motion, I don’t know yet,” said Wilkins, who voted in favor of both. “Part of me says I did the right thing, and then later in the day, I don’t know.”
Lori Davidson, the interim director of the Missoula Housing Authority, said she thought it was necessary to get rid of ADU’s for the zoning rewrite to go through.
“I was delighted to see the council to approve ADU’s in multi-family districts,” said Davidson, who along with Jaffee sees ADUs as an affordable housing option and hopes the issue will be revisited in the future.
“I’d say the ADU issue is off the table now,” said Jaffe. “As long as compromise continues to be the tone of the discussion, ADU’s won’t be a part. But there’s still a valid debate about whether they’re a good tool or not.”
[End of article]ADUs are almost always a big political deal in the New West and beyond. Most people living in single family neighborhoods want them to stay that way and rightly or wrongly consider zoning an Iron clad guarantee in perpetuity that their neighborhood will never change. However smart growth theory decrees that urban areas should become denser to absorb population increases without sprawling and that ADUs are a good tool to achieve increased density and affordable housing simultaneously. The problem is that most people, urban, suburban or rural don't want their neighborhood to become more dense and that there is no guarantee that ADU's will be occupied by tenants unrelated to the landlord who qualify for affordable housing. And of course sprawl is going to happen whether or not central urban areas become more dense.
Comment By jon cheever, 6-27-09It's sad that Missoula couldn’t see into the future and pass a comprehensive ADU ordinance for single family neighborhoods.
The delay only puts more pressure on the sprawl surrounding Missoula. More progressive communities in the west (especially in Colorado, Oregon, and California) have already created Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development programs, encouraging such construction in residential single-family neighborhoods. The key is preapproval of plans and strict controls.
Some cities in the west have revised their zoning ordinance to eliminate a covered parking requirement for single-family homes, which freed up space for accessory units. In addition, the new ordinances included design elements that ensure the accessory units complement the surrounding homes.
In Santa Cruz California, seven architects designed compact building prototypes (500 square feet) that address a variety of site needs. These plans have been pre-reviewed by city departments, which helps homeowners by reducing processing time, planning fees, and design costs.
Several cities have also released ADU “How To” manuals to help residents navigate the development process. The manuals package all the information homeowners need to develop an accessory unit, including guidance on making an accessory unit “neighbor-friendly,” managing a construction project, and being a good landlord.
Missoula had a chance to allowed controlled growth in the residential neighborhoods with a strong ADU ordinance. By passing an outright ban, all we've done it delay the inevitable move to infill development, and put more and more pressure on outlying areas.
-Jon Cheever
Here in Aspen, Colorado we've had ADUs in the city and what we call "caretaker dwelling units" (CDUs) in the more rural areas of the county.
The issue here has largely not been about density (because we control the totally floor area or bulk on a site and ADUs/CDUs are counted in that square footage), but the fact that these units are only rarely used to provide housing for working members of the community. Instead, they are "guest houses," which are unoccupied most of the year.
If we could revise our actions of the last 20-30 years, most people would say that there should be a mandatory occupancy provision for ADUs and CDUs so they don't sit empty while local government scrambles to try to build affordable housing on its own.
Just a cautionary tale from Aspen ...
Mandatory Occupancy Ordinance? Is that legal? Is that being done anywhere in the U.S.? An interesting idea.
Comment By Jon Cheever, 6-28-09Mickey Garcia-
Yes, mandatory occupancy is required in some ADU statues. For instance, Brememton Washington as a nice ordinance that includes the following residency requirements (see part d below):
Bremerton, Washington
CHAPTER 20.46
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
20.46.010
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
"An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) may be installed where a new or existing single- family dwelling unit (hereafter-principal unit) is allowed. Accessory Dwelling Units are exempt from density requirements and shall be subject to the following specific development, design and owner-occupancy standards.
(a) An ADU shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone for the principal unit including setbacks, height, and lot coverage.
(b) An ADU may be detached from the principal unit only if incorporated into an accessory garage structure.
(c) Only one (1) ADU may be created per lot residence.
(d) The property owner, which shall include titleholders and contract purchasers, must occupy either the principal unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for at least six (6)
months out of the year."
Sounds like a good plan.
Jon Cheever
Another idea is to require on-site mitigation for employment generation/affordable housing for new development (which probably isn't required at all in Missoula, especially for residential development). This is typically referred to as an "employee dwelling unit" (EDU), which is required to be rented year-round to a qualified employee (as defined by the local housing authority).
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/city_council_blinks_on_zoning_controversy/C8/L8/