Council Moves Ahead with ADU Design Rules Despite Resident Concerns
On Feb. 18, 2020 a three to one vote with Councilmember Jennifer Cavenaugh voting no, the new (Accessory Dwelling Unit) ADU design rules were approved by the City Council. The Council discussion lacked clarity on many issues. Landscaping in front of garage conversions, translucent windows, fencing, parking, and notice to neighbors were discussed. Fire safety, driveway access for emergency vehicles, street impacts, enforcement of required landscaping, etc. were not discussed.
Knowledgeable Piedmonters repeatedly asked the Council to require ADU applicants to notify neighbors even with staff having sole authority to make the determination on approval or disapproval. Required notice of an ADU applicant was rejected by City Attorney Michelle Kenyon as potentially troublesome and a questionable practice while she acknowledged State laws do not prohibit notice to neighbors by ADU applicants.
Some Piedmonters had desired notification to encourage cooperation between applicants and their neighbors, thus allowing opportunities to work out concerns.
The Council majority of McBain, Andersen, and Rood did not require notice. Cavenaugh voted no.
Importance of adopting appropriate ordinances and requirements
State laws require applications to be acted upon by staff ministerially within 60 days from the date of a completed application. Ministerially means there will be no public participation and only city staff can make the decision, which spotlights the need to have appropriate objective criteria for ADUs.
City Attorney Michelle Kenyon presented different information.
Reversing the Planning Director’s no appeal admonition to the Planning Commission, Kenyon stated that although neighbors cannot appeal a Planning staff decisions, the applicant could appeal a denied application to the City Council thereby opening up an entirely new avenue of consideration previously denied by the Planning Director.
There were numerous areas of concern not reviewed. The Council majority ultimately supported having the new ADU Design Guidelines approved rather than having none in place. It is expected changes and additions will be made in the future. The issue of irreversible legal matters incurred from the time of new rule adoption and subsequent ADU approvals was not discussed.
According to Planning Director Kevin Jackson numerous ADU inquiries have been made since the beginning of the year.
Comments:
2 Responses to “Council Moves Ahead with ADU Design Rules Despite Resident Concerns”
-
To paraphrase from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre:
Public Notice? Public Notice? We don’t need no stinkin’ Public Notice!!!
The longer I live in Piedmont (since 1978) the more I shake my head about more and more things that go on here.
-
The city isn’t asserting that it doesn’t “need” to give public notice. It’s position is much more condescending. City Attorney Kenyon stated it would be “draconian” to notice neighbors, the thinking being that to inform them of a ministerial process in which they have no say would do more harm than good. With this conclusion, the city may actually think that not informing neighbors is in their best interest. Others may watch the Video of the City Council meeting and reach their own conclusions.
Why in a city where neighbor notification is essential to well-designed home expansion in our “built out” community would the city not include this requirement in the ADU permitting process? It defies good planning.
Garrett Keating
My recommendation for story poles was somewhat facetious but given that the city won’t alert neighbors with a simple 3 x 5 postcard, what’s a neighborhood to do?
This requirement to not notify neighbors of ADU applications comes from City Attorney Kenyon and not planning staff. Kenyon said there is no legal prohibition to notify neighbors but in her opinion it would be “Draconian” to do so. Instead she implied the community would be better served through direct neighbor to neighbor communication. That position is logically flawed – such dialogue is best established through notification and without that requirement many of these neighbor to neighbor exchanges won’t happen and if they do, it will be after the fact.
More likely her position is self-serving – City Hall doesn’t want to take the phone calls from neighbors about these projects. Recall Maxwellton. No doubt it will be frustrating to have to deal with irate neighbors who aren’t aware of the ministerial ADU process, but that comes with the job. City Hall prides itself on customer service, but maybe it should think more about public service when it comes to ADUs.
Thanks to Councilwoman Cavenaugh and Planning Commissioner Levine for pushing for public notice.
Rick Schiller
A thanks to both Councilmember Jen Cavanaugh and Planning Commission Chair Jonathan Levine for their efforts to bring a wider community involvement to this important issue and resident notification.
My takeaway is based on the comment by City Attorney Kenyon near the end of the ADU Council discussion last night when Jen’s request for minimal resident notification was shot down. City Attorney Kenyon replied that the City is now in compliance. Is Piedmont the last out of compliance City? Highly doubtful. The State ADU Housing Guidelines, assuming the recently passed series of ADU legislations, is only a month away. (City Planner Mike Henn presented this information to Council last night.) Being out of compliance might bring a State letter, but Piedmont is far away from being sued by the State and would have everything in place to immediately pass ordinances to be in compliance once the compliance criteria are known.
I would like to have more resident notification and involvement with a Town Hall type meeting for the new ADU ordinances and guidelines. Council indicated they will treat the new Chapter 17 modifications and ADU Design Guidelines as living documents that can be amended as needed. Hopefully this will be done with the same swiftness as the very recent ADU implementations have been.