Opinion: Neighborhoods should get to make their own decisions on ADUs

The city council recently took up the issue of allowing more “accessory dwelling units” in single-family neighborhoods. An ADU is a self-contained apartment within a single-family house or in a separate building on the same lot. Currently, Boulder has significant limits on ADUs, including requirements for off-street parking and density limits, like allowing only 20% of houses in a 300-foot radius to have ADUs. These were carefully worked out several years ago.

Now, some council members are pushing to allow all single-family homes to have ADUs, both internal and external. That would allow three units on every lot — two ADUs plus the main unit — though with the proposed 900-square-foot size limit, this could look like a duplex plus another house. And even with a constraint of, say, a maximum of five unrelated people, it would effectively turn every lot into a small condo development, since ownership could be through an LLC whose members change with whoever is living there.

Interestingly, at the council’s recent session, a city staffer stated (per the Camera’s quote), “We cannot find another city in the country that has a saturation limit for ADUs.” This conclusion was then repeated by at least one council member to justify eliminating limits.

But limits show up in other forms. Traverse City, Michigan, only allows 15 ADUs per year. New Castle County, Delaware, limits ADUs to 0.4% of total single-family homes in the county per year. 

Many cities have stringent off-street parking requirements, which de facto limit the number of multi-unit lots.

Both Omaha, Nebraska, and Dallas, Texas, have approaches that deserve serious discussion but apparently haven’t been researched by city staff. Critically, they include neighborhood involvement and approval in some form or another. Omaha’s rules, in Article XV, Accessory Apartments, of their Code section 55-763, states, “Purpose. This provision recognizes the need for alternative housing for special population groups and the economic difficulty of maintaining very large single-family houses in specific parts of the city. It is intended to meet these needs in designated areas, while maintaining the single-family nature of a neighborhood. … An application to allow accessory apartments may be initiated by petition of not less than 50 percent of the property owners within the proposed area.”

I like that Omaha specifically states that they want to maintain the single-family nature of the neighborhood. In other words, they respect the expectations of their citizens who spent their savings to buy into the area. And, critically, they don’t see adding more housing as a sacred mission to which every other value must be sacrificed.

Dallas also addresses property owners’ legitimate desires to preserve their neighborhoods. Dallas does not allow ADUs by right. Per the discussion of their regulations on their website, a neighborhood could come together to submit an application to the city to create an overlay that would allow ADUs. A neighborhood committee consisting of at least 10 property owners within the proposed overlay area would create a boundary map and plat of the requested area. Then the city staff would conduct a neighborhood meeting, with notices sent to all property owners within the area. Then the owners would generate a petition of more than 50% of the property owners. 

Presumably, the petition could specify the separation requirements, ADU size maximums, lot size minimums, on-site owner requirements, occupancy limits, off-street parking requirements, affordability, etc. What I especially like about both cities’ approaches is that they start with the neighborhood; they’re not imposed top-down.

Locally, it appears that some on the council think that just winning an election suddenly means that whatever they want goes. And their argument about ADUs providing more affordable housing is just an excuse: The council failed to make the zoning changes in East Boulder needed to balance jobs and housing. They’ve not raised the jobs-housing linkage fees nor increased the inclusionary housing percentage to adequate numbers. CU South’s potential student and staff increase could far exceed the required on-site housing, both in numbers and cost. And proposed ADU rent limits are not truly affordable anyway. 

Having good values does not substitute for doing real governance. The “you have it, I want it, so I’ll take it” attitude just turns a potential solution into a real problem. The council, through its agenda committee, should include knowledgeable citizens with different perspectives from the beginning, show substantive respect for those who will be impacted, and make sure staff does complete research up front so all options are on the table. Let the neighborhoods help make their own decisions.

 

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more