Planning Commission Proposes Changes to “Liberalize” ADU Requirements
The Lakewood Planning Commission was asked by City Council to investigate ways to expand use of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) to increase affordable housing in Lakewood. In a series of increasingly acrimonious meetings, the Commission developed a series of recommendations that have residents concerned the city would turn all R1 zones into R2 zones while having no impact on affordable housing. The main barrier to building ADUs are the high water and sewer tap fees, which the city has no control over. Rather than acknowledging the barrier is out of city control, some Commissioners pushed to “liberalize” the code while arguing with other Commissioners over the basics, such as what “primary residence” means.
The theory behind the original request was that people with large lots could easily add an ADU, such as a mother-in-law suite or garage apartment, to make easy affordable housing. As the Planning Commission quickly found out, ADUs are extremely uncommon. The reason for that is the cost of the water and sewer taps. These fees are set by the respective water and sanitation districts to cover the cost for infrastructure and cannot be changed by Lakewood.
After determining the cause of limited ADU development, the Planning Commission faced a decision:
- Accept the research that the City was not inhibiting ADUs, and therefore there was no significant action they could take, or;
- Ignore the research and recommend changes to try and bypass the regulations set by water districts.
The Commission chose the later option, interpreting the assignment as a mandate for action no matter what the research revealed. Dialogue from the Commissioners revealed the reason for this stance.
Commissioner Kolkmeier stated: ““We have, without question, an affordability problem, and it’s not just Lakewood. What would be a change for ADUs that would be reasonable that would help the problem that is pretty well documented?”
In fact, Lakewood’s own housing study shows that Lakewood has excess housing for units over $800 a month. Lakewood is currently developing more housing so that within 10 years a glut of housing is expected. The affordability crisis is for extremely-low-income housing, which is a need that an ADU cannot fill.
Commissioner Animosity
As Commissioner Kentner pointed out, another problem with ADUs is that they do not increase the opportunity for home ownership, there are only opportunities for rental units.
Following Kentner advocating for home ownership opportunities, Commissioner Kip Kolkmeier chastised Commissioner Kentner for two minutes in the middle of the November 15 Planning Commission meeting and refused to immediately allow her to clarify her comments, which she says were misinterpreted.
Commissioner Kolkmeier said with some apparent animosity, “This notion that people are concerned about rentals… this is a real problem…. Merely because someone has different economics, it does not make them a bad neighbor. It does not make them someone that you do not want to have more of…. We have a clear majority in this city that understands that we should not choose between renters and owners.”
Kentner did not, in fact, say anything against renters, but rather advocated for ownership opportunities. She also spoke of listening to the people who came for public comment., including the Eiber neighborhood which put out a call to action regarding these changes.
When Kolkmeier did allow Kentner to speak and defend herself, he took the last word in the acrimonious exchange.
FACT CHECK: Commissioner Kentner made the claim that under the proposed rules, there could be two Short-Term Rentals (STRs) on a property. Commissioner Kolkmeier claimed that was inaccurate because one unit would have to be a primary residence. Kentner returned that primary residence did not mean owner occupied, therefore when the owner is not at the primary residence, there could be two STRs. Although Kolkmeier did not say Kentner was right, he did agree that removing the owner-occupied provision would be the result of the Planning Commission having the votes.
Public comment
Commissioner Kentner also stood up for the number of residents who provided public comment against the proposed zoning code changes during the November 5 meeting. Kenter pointed out that given the low attendance at these meetings, the number of comments received was surprising and should be listened to.
Residents pointed out that there was robust public comment on this issue during the 2012 zoning rewrite and that many of the regulations that the Planning Commission is trying to relax, were intended to keep the impact to neighbors to a minimum.
The proposed regulations regarding height, floor area, and ubiquitous zoning, when taken together, constitute nothing less than a second full-scale structure, which compromises the very purpose of an R-1 zone, effectively replacing it with R-2 zoning. As such, R-1 zoning will become RINO, and altogether irrelevant, which is a violation of the public trust.
Paul Ditson, Lakewoodspeaks.org
Public comment in favor of the changes advocated for any type of increased housing and typically did not address neighborhood suitability or specific changes. No research was presented that ADUs would fill a need that an apartment complex in an area zoned for multi-family would not.
Summary:
Kolkmeier summarized the issue by saying that Lakewood essentially outlaws ADUs and they are necessary for the affordability problem. However, he says, “It may be possible to dramatically liberalize the ability for ADUs… and yet there may not be any more ADUs” due to the cost of tap fees.
The vote passed, with all Commissioners present voting to pass the recommendations to City Council (Kentner and Peters absent).
Recommendations:
- Double the size of an ADU to 1400 sq feet
- Remove “owner-occupied” from ADUs, resulting in the possibility of two STRs operating on the property at least part of the year.
- Reduce parking limitations
- Waivers will now be granted (for setbacks, open space, or other rules governing development)
It remains to be seen if Council will be presented with information on how the true barrier is water tap fees and the proposed code changes are expected to be ineffective.