Sedona Housing Commission Chair Linda Martinez
(back), Commissioner Sandy Moriarty (center), and Sedona City
Councilor and Housing Commission liaison, Dan Surber
(foreground) review changes (in yellow) to the
Commission's
proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Sedona Housing Commission discusses community concerns about ADUs
SEDONA, AZ (November 17, 2009)- After more than 3 years of
research, 20 public forums, and many rewrites for a proposed Accessory Dwelling
Unit ordinance, the Sedona Housing Commission last night discussed their
final draft to be presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission on
December 1, 2009.
If approved by the P&Z, the draft ordinance will likely move on to
the Sedona City Council sometime in January 2010 for a final decision.
An Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADU, is a rented second residential dwelling
that is either attached or detached from the main residence.
Unlike a guest house that cannot be rented and is not allowed to have a
kitchen, an ADU provides complete rentable living quarters. Currently ADUs
are not permitted in Sedona. The Housing Commission is proposing to make
them legal subject to a host of conditions and regulations, including
that they must be rented for at least 90 days (short-term rentals less
than 30 days are
illegal in Sedona).
The Commission is hoping that ADUs will help fulfill its mandate to
bring more affordable housing to Sedona for workers and seniors, create
greater economic diversity, and provide extra income for homeowners.
The new draft ordinance has changed in many ways from prior drafts
based largely on comments the Commission has received from the public.
One important new requirement is that only 88 new ADUs will be allowed
to be constructed over the next five years, approximately a 1% increase
over the current residential build out projections.
Said Audree Juhlin, Assistant to the Director Community Development,
"The new draft ordinance balances the need for affordable housing with
the concerns of the community."
Yet, despite this, Commission members remain concerned that their
message may not be getting through.
Said Commission Chair Linda Martinez, "The community has been
reasonably supportive but they want more assurances."
Said Juhlin, "In other towns we've looked at, many of the
[community's] perceived fears have not been realized. In Sedona,
there have only been 8 complaints about illegal ADUs."
Said Commissioner Helen Snyder, "We don't want to presume that the
community at large supports this and appear naive."
Said one Commissioner, "People are afraid their community is going to
get trashed."
Sedona Housing Commissioner Natalia McKendry helps map out
a strategy to better communicate how the proposed ADU ordinance addresses community concerns.
In addition to the perceived negative impacts ADUs might have on
residential character such as increased density, noise, and traffic, "lack of trust" was raised.
Said Martinez, "The community doesn't necessarily believe that the
city will do what it says it's going to do."
Many of the concerns appear tied to the enforcement of the ADU
ordinance. If the City of Sedona is unable to enforce current
ordinances against illegal ADUs and short-term rentals, some say, how
will it be able to enforce a new ADU ordinance?
Will ADUs be used illegally as short-term rentals?
How will the city enforce on-street parking and noise problems that
ADUs might create?
Enforcement in cities is typically "complaint based," meaning that
citizens must report possible law breakers to the city for it to act.
Said Commissioner Gene Snyder, "We have to keep emphasizing that [the
ADU ordinance requires that] there is an owner on the premises.
That's the strongest enforcement there is."
Readers' comments
#1 FYI Sedona residents, I received an
email notice today that my property value
has decreased yet another $5K. This in the
face of the City of Sedona believing it can
persuade its residents to accept the concept
of "Affordable Dwelling Units" aka
"Workforce Housing," etc. and thereby be
categorized with all of the urban
environments who have had no choice, BUT to
adopt such planning practices.
Apparently, what the City needs is
responsible public servants who are
responsive to the residents' desires. Let's
see if we can finally elect some this time
around.
#2 I have attended quite a few of the
"Affordable Housing" meetings, and read the
documentation, with the exception of this
latest revision (in the picture it looks
like a rewrite).
I am a huge champion of working people. I am
one! But what I have seen of the Housing
Commission, is not working, and is unlikely
to work in the future.
What I have proposed more than once is that
a database of people seeking housing and
housing available be set up. It could be run
by one half-time person.
People seeking housing could apply, and make
a deposit to show they are serious, not
"wishers." When a match is found and the
party decides to move, a consortium of
businesses and volunteers could help people
get into their new home with possible
discounts for services required for moving.
This plan does not require more building or
greater density. (Remember, if developers
are granted greater density per acre in
exchange for their promise to build x number
of affordable units, there is no provision
to require their complicity!) They promise,
but they don't really have to deliver unless
they are people of a certain conscience.
What this commission lacks is:
1) results
2) names of any people who would actually
move into such units if and when they are
available.
The commission isn't solving actual
problems. They are just talking about
solving them. And making deals with
developers in which public benefit may never
emerge. And showing the public pretty
pictures of very dense housing that could be
built anywhere, but may not be pretty if
built here, because they (we) do not control
developers. (That part is a sales job,
strictly promotional!)
Is this just a "feel-good" commission on
which people get a sense they are
championing the poor, but no one actually
gets help?
I want names...Who lives in the affordable
units we've acquired? Who will uproot their
families and move when we have more
low-priced units?
I want solutions. Match renters with
property owners. What's so complicated about
that?
Lin Ennis
#3 LETTER TO THE
EDITOR RE: "SEDONA HOUSING COMMISSION
DISCUSSES COMMUNITY CONCERNS ABOUT ADUs"
Dear Editor:
The tortured logic, excesses, and lax
standards continue no matter "the lipstick"
the Housing Commission puts on ADUs.
Sedona's single-family residential zoning
does not permit two dwellings per lot nor
mixed residential and commercial use. Yet
the proposed ordinance increases the density
and use of residential plots by bringing
second dwellings, ADUs that can be rented,
to properties in neighborhoods sans strong
CC&R.
Unlike Sedona, there are real standards for
single-family residential zonesin
unincorporated towns and areas
nearby. Minimum residential parcel sizes
for Detached Guest Homes (ADUs) are two
acres in Coconino County and 35,000 square
feet in Yavapai County -- rentals are
prohibited.
In addition, Yavapai county allows no more
than two occupants per accessory dwelling
and requires a notice by mail of new
requests to surrounding property owners
within 300 feet. And deeds in Coconino
County state the accessory unit is for
family or guests and not for rental
purposes.
The City of Sedona is irresponsible and
unconcerned about the consequences of
lax standards and increased lot densities.
Instead, its ADU proposal authorizes
mixed-use, commercialization via rentals,
garage conversions and the cramming of more
people, cars and structures onto small
residential parcels.
There are no lot size restrictions, and the
surrounding property owners will not be
notified of new ADUs. The number of
occupants allowed in these small ADUs/rentals
designed for two people? No more than three
unrelated adults, their children and
relatives.
And, what about the requirement that
property owners submit an annual ADU
report? Overlooking that ADUs are intrusive
in and of themselves, the Housing Commission
recently deleted this language from the
proposed Ordinance due to
intrusiveness. Thus, City Hall will have no
way of knowing an ADU's status, rendering
impossible enforcement of whether it
is rented for at least 90 days or is an
illegal short-term rental that brings
transients and crime into a neighborhood.
This is a result of the City meeting with
such civic organizations as the Sedona/Verde
Valley Assoc. of Realtors, Luxury Real
Estate Professionals, the Sedona Community
Center Board, etc.
Of course, concerns about unenforceability,
parking-lot conditions, increased traffic,
decreased property values, environmental
degradation, noise and poor quality of life
abound. Be sure to attend the Public
Hearing on Tuesday, December 1st, at 5:30
p.m., City Council Chambers, and tell P & Z
you oppose ADUs in single-family residential
neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Jean Jenks
#4 I know the Commission has giving much
thought, hard work and taken lots of input
and ADU's in a strong effort to address a
need we have here.
Making ADU's offical, regulated and
registered, make sense to me.
John DiBattista
Readers' Comments
SEDONA.BIZ COMMENTS: We have added a new way to post comments. You can post as a guest (the name you type-in will be displayed), you can login using your Twitter account login info, or you can sign up at Disqus.
To comment as a GUEST, type your comment, name, and
email. (only the name will be displayed).
Click on POST AS GUEST. If you have trouble posting, email editor@sedona.biz, and we'll help.
