AgdaPkt 2019-03-11 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Rachel Holt Good morning Ian and Aaron - 1 have spent several hours over the past couple of months meeting with some of my neighbors and getting mysel, up to speed on the current (and awful) rules on ADUs- both garage conversions and new construction. I watched the entire Planning Commission meeting where staff presented on what they believed the city was required to do and where we had some flexibility. Based on very pointed questions by Rick Hunter at that meeting staff represented that there were things city staff could AND WOULD do to help mitigate a very serious massing/privacy/density problem we would be creating by allowing 28 ft AD U's atop existing garages that were 6 feet from the property line. Unfortunately when the presentation was make to Council none of those promises were fulfilled, nor even discussed. The sell to City Council, in my opinion, was "here's what we have to do, no questions allowed. " I know you are both aware of a neighbor who lives on the 100 block of Lowell who will now have an ADU, built atop a garage that will first be extended back towards her property to the 6 ft setback, staring down into her backyard. She has spent hours talking to city staff trying to figure out what the current code allows (and discovered a few loopholes in the process- as you will also see discussed if you watch the Planning Commission meeting on this subject) and to her many neighbors, the majority of which were appalled at what could be built under the current code. In gearing up for a possible appeal I know that she gathered approximately 38 supporters in the close proximity of her home. I also spoke to my direct neighbors, as well as neighbors throughout the Mt. Carmel neighborhood, who both supported the possible appeal and many of them also had stories of their own regarding 2nd story ADUs that had gone up next to them and that when they contacted the city to inquire/protest they were told there was "nothing they could do as it complied with current code". Many of my neighbors are very upset about the continued infringement on privacy and density. 1 think most agree that the state law, as proposed and advertised, anticipated (with significantly relaxed setbacks and parking requirements) existing garage conversions and perhaps new construction of single story "granny units" that infringed solely on the homeowner (lust look at the brochures from the state and all the pictures of pretty one- story cottages.....). With the current code the envelope is being pushed, and pushed hard. Just ask planning staff to show the recent request at 141 Hudson (which was thankfully denied). It was nearly a new 2 story house in the backyard. I am confident this is not just an issue that is affecting the Mt. Carmel neighborhood. I understand that you both are committed to getting this issue back to council ASAP (may I suggest along with the emergency FAR discussion?) and I thank you for that. I have also had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Vice Mayor Howard and I think 1 can safely say that she would also like to see this issue back to council in the very near future. I understand and respect the toll this takes on staff time, time that is already severely taxed. However, the alternative of even more time consuming appeals filed by concerned neighbors is a very likely alternative. Again I thank you both for your attention to this issue and am happy to speak with you further ifyou think that would be helpful. Best, Rachel Holt