|
|
|
 |
| Linda Martinez, Chair of the Sedona Housing Commission addresses a crowd of about 30 Sedona residents at the Radisson Poco Diablo Resort on June 29, 2009 regarding a proposed city ordinance that would permit the rental of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or full living quarters, in addition to a main house on a residential property. |
Sedona residents turn out against ADUs
Says one resident, "We're being duped!"
by Carl Jackson
SEDONA, AZ – (June 30, 2009) – At last
night's public forum at the Radisson Poco Diablo
Resort on the city's proposed Accessory
Dwelling Unit ordinance, about 30 residents turned
out in protest.
The residents questioned the city's ability to enforce an ADU ordinance, its lack of forthrightness in presenting all sides of the ADU issues to the public, the increased population density it would create in their residential neighborhood and the possible diminution of their property values; and even the Sedona Housing Commission's goal to provide affordable housing in our high cost city.
|
|
|
|
What is an ADU?
| Sedona Housing Chair, Linda Martinez makes the case for ADUs at a public forum on June 29, 2009. (video time: 5:06 minutes) |
As background, an Accessory Dwelling Unit is a second dwelling unit located on the same parcel as the primary single-family dwelling unit with separate living quarters, bath, and kitchen.
Currently, the city prohibits the rental of an ADU and typically requires that a resident remove the kitchen when it becomes aware of an illegal ADU.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that there may be as many as 200 illegal ADUs in the City of Sedona.
In its new ADU ordinance, the city is proposing that ADUs be permitted so long as they are rented for a minimum of 90 days and not used as vacation rentals.
Although the ADUs could be rented to anyone for any purpose, the primary objective of the ordinance is to make them affordable for workers and seniors and to help homeowners generate extra income. To that end, an ADU cannot be larger than 800 square feet.
In addition, both the main residence and the ADU cannot be rented at the same time, the owner of record must occupy either the main residence or the ADU, only one ADU would be permitted per property; and the ADU must meet all of the zoning and building code requirements in the city's Land Development Code.
Existing illegal ADUs would be grandfathered so long as the property owner applies for an ADU permit within 6 months after the ordinance takes effect and so long as they bring the ADU up to code.
Sedona Housing Commission Chair, Linda Martinez, was quick to point out that ADU rents would not be controlled and that market forces and the size and quality of the ADU would dictate the rent. Said Martinez, "We are not looking at income to set [rental] rates. But by their very nature and size, rents [for ADUs] tend to be lower than [average] market rates." She went on to say that the ADUs are not just for workers: "ADUs could be used for elderly family members or perhaps a resident is getting older and wants to stay in Sedona but doesn't want to live in the main residence. They could move into the ADU or rent the ADU to a caretaker. It's also a way for homeowner to generate some extra income."
Residents' reactions
Most in attendance were not convinced.
Said one resident, "[This ordinance] will turn our residential neighborhood into a commercial area."
Resident Kathleen Johnson said that her neighborhood was older and particularly vulnerable to the proposed ordinance: "Our CC&R's didn't consider ADUs when they were written. We also have lots of rental units. I think this ordinance will hurt our property values because the ADUs won't be spread out over the community but will end up in neighborhoods like ours."
Jennifer Wesselhoff, CEO of the Sedona Chamber of Commerce and one of the sponsors of the ADU forum, asked whether home owner association rules could be amended to prohibit ADUs in a neighborhood. Although allowable, one resident pointed out that some CC&Rs require a 90% homeowner vote to make amendments; and it would be difficult to obtain the necessary votes in those neighborhoods with a high percentage of rental units.
Others objected to the proposed ordinance on principle. Said one resident, "Sedona is a wealthy town. I worked hard for the phone company for 29 years and saved so that I could one day live in Sedona. I'm sorry but does the doorman at a 5th avenue building ever think he has a right to live there?"
Resident Carol Wirkus said the city wasn't being forthright: "A typical residence in Sedona averages 2.1 people. For John O'Brien [Director of Community Development] to say that a new ADU will have to comply with the city's existing density ordinance that no more than 4 unrelated adults can live on the property, and that the lot coverage allowance will not change, is disingenuous. We all know that ADUs will lead to more people living on the property."
176 units will increase density by only 1%, or will they?
Residents also questioned whether the city was being honest about the number of ADUs that would be permitted under the new ordinance and their impact on overall unit density.
 |
| Sedona Director of Community Development, John O'Brien shows attendees how ADUs could be distributed throughout the city. The orange areas currently have CC&Rs that would prohibit ADUs. The green areas would allow ADUs, and the blue areas require further research. "The map is a work in progress," said O'Brien. |
Although the ordinance establishes a growth cap of 176 ADU units over a five year period, it wasn't clear to those in attendance whether the cap would apply to only new ADU construction or if it also considered existing illegal ADUs that will become legal under the new ordinance.
Said John O'Brien, "The 176 applies to newly constructed ADUs not existing illegal ADUs that are grandfathered. That's been the intention from the very beginning. If that's not clear we'll have to clarify the language."
Said resident Denise Barnhart, "The city is being less than truthful in its presentation of the facts. For instance the city is treating an ADU as half a dwelling unit instead of a full unit."
Said Carol Wirkus, "If you include all the illegal ADUs and if you treat an ADU as a full unit, which it is, instead of a half unit, the city is actually increasing the overall density limit by 4% not 1% as they say."
Readers'
comments
#1 I like the ADU idea , it's your land you
should have a right to add on , I hate all of
these heavy handed laws that tell you what you
can or can't do with "your" land , and a few
more people living here year round will barely
make a blip on the radar , we get millions of
tourists here a year , stop your whinning and
grow up and let others live the way they want as
long as they aint hurting you then who cares !
#2 To all the elitists who think there is no need for affordable housing in Sedona (or at least not in THEIR neighborhoods), you may someday wake up to find out that this city "animated by the arts" has been abandoned by artists, writers, and other hard-working decent people.
#3 We need affordable housing - even if some of the protesters are wealthy, their firemen, police and teachers are not. They deserve a descent place to live, close to their jobs.
#4 Responses to responses:
#1 I guess you haven't noticed that for the past
year and a half the number of tourists coming
here as declined sharply. Are we to believe that
you wouldn't mind living next to an ADU that
continues to deteriorate because of inadequate
City staff to enforce codes?
#2 If the City and certain residents succeed in
their plan to continue developing commercial
property the need for ADUs and affordable
housing in general will increase exponentially
to house the "service workers" hired by these
newly developed businesses. Artists, writers and
other "hard- working decent people" will have an
even tougher financial time.
#3 Firemen, policemen and school teachers all
responded to the last survey about this that
they had no interest in bringing up their
families in Sedona.
Finally, residents need to understand how
integral this issue is to "development." Once
the City approves all of the commercial
development it thinks will add to its dwindling
coffers, "service workers" employed by these
shops will need an affordable place to live.
As Michael Ward's article pointed out, the City
does not have adequate staff to oversee such
granting of permits, or enforcing codes. The fee
to a homeowner for wanting to build an ADU is
ridiculous. Our City staff members need to go
back to the drawing board and create something
viable for a change.
#5 To me it is all about enforcement. If the city cannot enforce a single family dwelling with six cars all coming and going everyday, or that vehicle that had been on the side of the road for two years; why would we think they could enforce all of the new guidelines in this proposal?
#6 To #4: Are you implying that service workers
aren't also hard working, decent people? Are
firemen etc. the only category of workers
Sedonans are willing to have as neighbors? Did
anyone ask WHY these three groups didn't want to
raise their families in Sedona? Can't we stretch
our imaginations to include any other categories
of workers who might be interested in affordable
housing? When will gas prices discourage
commuting from Camp Verde (or wherever else
workers are supposed to live) for a $10/hr
part-time job with no benefits?
And do you, the council members, or the
"anti-almost-everythings" who show up at meeting
have any other solutions to offer? How about
property taxes? Or a $15/hour city-wide minimum
wage? Put those options on the table and perhaps
ADUs and other affordable housing options won't
be so frightening. And if you're worried about
deterioration, just wait until the working class
heads elsewhere, which seems to be the real
agenda for some people.
#7 To impose this separate rental to houses that are in neighbor hoods where there is not room for such a motion is unbelievable: to its notion to pass. You would have people parking in the street. People paying far less than you to live in the same neighborhood.It is not fair to the market for residential homes...that only include the main home...it is not right...how it got this far is beyond belief....shuk it to dead in the water...bjhaddock
#8 No, the 11 pages of guidelines and
regulations in the proposed ADU Ordinance are
not loose enough.
If there are special circumstances, specific
conditions, or whatever, the Director of
Community Development has the discretion to
waive ADU regulations. The public is not a part
of the process. Why accept this injustice?
Administrative Review with a Comment Period is
needed. After the applicant submits his or her
site plan, surrounding property owners within
1,000 feet of a planned ADU need to be notified
and given 21 days to file a written protest. The
waiving of ADU regulations by Community
Development and the relaxing of applicable
standards are not allowed. If Yavapai County can
adopt this enlightened approach for
single-family residential zones in its
unincorporated areas, then why can't the City of
Sedona?
#9 Everybody will get old, and will need a
caregiver if they don't die young. Unless you
are wealthy enough to pay 24-hour caregiver
$250-$300/day average, providing caregiver
housing can make it affordable.
If you would rather be under group convalescent
care and share your room with strangers and eat
cafeteria food, that may be your only option if
you don't rent your main house and live in an
ADU. In an economy like today, it's hard to sell
that big empty-nester house requiring a lot of
money to air condition or keep warm. Renting the
main house to a larger family, and living in an
ADU can make less affluent people's lives in the
twilight years more bearable.
Of course you can stay with adult children, but
that is not what in-laws in America usually
agree to. As the huge wave of Boomers retire,
this issue will be more front and center for
those with diminished retirement funds.
|
|
|
