HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/4/2020 Item 8, Scarry
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Pease, Andy
Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:26 AM
To:CityClerk
Subject:FW: ADU
For agenda correspondence
-----Original Message-----
From: David Scarry <
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 5:02 PM
To: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn
<cchristi@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>
Subject: ADU
Is there an explanation for needing an emergency ordinance to help prevent more affordable housing by
design by enacting an ordinance that is written to make ADU construction the most restrictive possible
without violating the state ADU law?
The law does not require cities to allow 40ft tall ADU at 4 ft off property line. It only requires a
minimum of 16 ‘ be allowed. Applying the 16 foot limit regardless of setback essentially eliminates all
second story accessory dwelling units added onto an existing home. The city may allow any height
beyond 16 ft without violating the state law. It appears the city is intending to make it more difficult to
build an ADU by requiring director approval of any ADU taller than 16 ft even if it complies with the
height restrictions that are standard in the local code for the zone. This causes delays and expense as
well as an opportunity for neighbors to appeal.
This is not required for a normal addition and should not be required for an ADU. Staff is already unable
to keep up with the work load.
I will probably just design a standard residential addition that complies with set backs then convert it to
an ADU to avoid the delays ,expense and potential appeal caused by Director review.
There is no need to burden your planning staff with extra work that they do not have time for. The state
is already working on revisions to the law to eliminate that loop hole. So even if council is successful in
delaying accessory dwelling units one more year next year the state will take away more of the cities
control. It’s too bad that the state has to come in and force cities like ours to be proactive in affordable
housing by design.
I will design all of my units so that I can easily convert the extra 200 ft.² beyond the thousand square
feet that the city is trying to limit the accessory dwelling unit to so I can convert it when the law changes
again. In cases where I’m building free standing ADU’s if necessary I will submerge the first floor and
build flat roofs in order to maintain that 16 foot height limit. It’s a giant waste of money and does not
help with the affordability aspect of these homes but it will make them more desirable for tenants. Flat
roofs in general are not as aesthetically appealing as sloped roofs but if that’s what needs to happen to
comply with a 16’ limit I will do that.
1
I will also be forced to eliminate parking instead of building the ADU above parking because it will not be
possible to have space for parking and maintain the 16 ‘ height limit. The law allows for that but it’s not
good for neighborhoods.
When you’re reviewing the new ordinance please limit the height to 16 feet at 4ft from property line
and allow the Heights and set backs of all ADU’s to comply with the normal city ordinance for setbacks
and Heights. Please don’t burden the planning department and owners with excessive fees and time
delays by requiring director review as long as the design complies with existing city ordinance related to
height and setback.
I have a contact at the state who is very responsive if you’d like to talk to him about the intent of the
law and compliance.
David Scarry
Sent from my iPhone
2