In the INC May newsletter, information on ADU's was published.
A counterpoint from WWP official Charlie Busch has been received, which we encourage comments on:
"An article about carriage houses was written in the May INC newsletter by those who activelypromote Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This article offers a different perspective.
The earlier article relayed an example where the occupants of an ADU would be relatives or care givers of the residents of the main house. While this may in some instances be the case, the size of most of these units (most often 300-500 square feet) suggests that a more likely occupant may be a renter. Injecting more renters into stable neighborhoods generally increases a transitional population, which could destabilize the current owner-occupied balances of our neighborhoods and make it harder to maintain single family homes. It is possible to mandate that an owner occupy either the main dwelling unit or the ADU on each property, as is required by a number of cities permitting ADUs. Such a requirement could serve to curb complaints that arise from ADUs, such as excessive noise. However, we understand the City has rejected this idea, citing concern that enforcing such requirements would be difficult and time-consuming. As Denver residents, many of us have first-hand experience with the difficulties of enforcing code violations regarding residency requirements. Given this, even if an owner-occupancy restriction was imposed under the new Code, it seems unlikely thatmeaningful enforcement in a City as large as Denver could be achieved without a major investment of resources. Unfortunately, the City has stated it has no resources for such enforcement activities.
A counterpoint from WWP official Charlie Busch has been received, which we encourage comments on:
"An article about carriage houses was written in the May INC newsletter by those who activelypromote Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This article offers a different perspective.
The earlier article relayed an example where the occupants of an ADU would be relatives or care givers of the residents of the main house. While this may in some instances be the case, the size of most of these units (most often 300-500 square feet) suggests that a more likely occupant may be a renter. Injecting more renters into stable neighborhoods generally increases a transitional population, which could destabilize the current owner-occupied balances of our neighborhoods and make it harder to maintain single family homes. It is possible to mandate that an owner occupy either the main dwelling unit or the ADU on each property, as is required by a number of cities permitting ADUs. Such a requirement could serve to curb complaints that arise from ADUs, such as excessive noise. However, we understand the City has rejected this idea, citing concern that enforcing such requirements would be difficult and time-consuming. As Denver residents, many of us have first-hand experience with the difficulties of enforcing code violations regarding residency requirements. Given this, even if an owner-occupancy restriction was imposed under the new Code, it seems unlikely thatmeaningful enforcement in a City as large as Denver could be achieved without a major investment of resources. Unfortunately, the City has stated it has no resources for such enforcement activities.
Without the certainty of an owner-occupant on the premises, neighbors adjacent to ADUs couldbe subjected to increased alley noise, lack of privacy and traffic from what could easily translate into garage housing for students and young adults. Of course, there is a need for housing for such populations, but this is perhaps best accommodated in areas appropriately zoned for density. It is hard to dispute that individuals enjoying their college years and young adulthood frequently have lifestyles that can be out of synch with those valued by many in our predominantly single-family areas. Encouraging such uses in areas zoned for multi-family structures, or in areas of change where the inclusion of such uses is from the onset contemplated as part of the housing mix, can better address everyone’s needs and desires.
In addition to issues of differing lifestyles, privacy issues arise from allowing ADUs in single family home neighborhoods. As Denver residents, we spend significant resources to enhance our backyards, which for many of us serve as our only outdoor oasis from the hustle and bustle of city life. While a property owner with an ADU may fill her lot with more square footage of living space, the neighbor next door or across the alley suffers the lack of privacy in his backyard that ensues from the presence of an adjacent garage apartment. The quiet enjoyment of our outdoor spaces would be compromised.
It should also be noted that each additional living unit, on average, currently demands parking for one or two cars, and generates up to ten additional car trips per day. Some cities permitting ADUs require that three parking spaces be provided, and that one space be reserved solely for the ADU. But again, even if the new Code were to adopt such a requirement, enforcement likely would be an issue.
In the end, we must ask ourselves how much we, as residents in Denver’s existing stable neighborhoods, are willing to surrender in lifestyle for the profit of others. Clearly this type of housing should not be permitted in all of our Denver neighborhoods. The City should exempt single family home zone districts from this type of use and density. Otherwise, we must face the fact that such districts will no longer be single family home districts."
Granny's response:
In the city's words:
"Denver's 53-year-old zoning code is broken and needs to be fixed. It suffers from more than a half century of incremental changes that have made it complicated, inconsistent and cumbersome. Denver needs a new zoning code that will support a growing economy, a sustainable environment, a diverse mix of housing, strong neighborhoods, and a high quality of life."
We also feel that the old zoning code "didn't quite get it right". It was drafted during a time when people were afraid of many things about urban areas, the "Top 3" being density, traffic and parking. Carriage houses were outlawed due to these fears. The facts at the time weren't evaluated sufficiently. Those facts still exist today -- that Denver's thousands of carriage houses cause very few problems compared to the benefits for the city and its residents.
In other cities that have adopted ADU codes, only one home per thousand is converted per year. This is not something to fear.
Please comment below!
Many of the new zones in the new code allow Detached ADU's, even in some old R1 neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteApparently the city planning staff agrees with us about how positive they are.
In Charlie Busch's carefully worded letter above, she says, "young (adults) can have lifestyles... that are out of synch with... single family neighborhoods".
Friends of Granny, however, believes in all types of diversity, not because it's politically correct, but because we honestly believe diversity produces better neighborhoods.
Windsor Gardens was designed for people who want to exclude young people. Exclusion of demographic categories is NOT a goal of zoning or urban planning.