Bend council closing in on new accessory-dwelling rules

When people keep moving to a place like Bend, where state land-use laws limit how to handle that growth, if you can’t grow out (which critics call sprawl), you either have to grow up — and there’s much resistance to tall buildings blocking mountain views — or grow inward, as in infill, which can spark neighborhood friction to a major degree.

But it wasn’t vacant lots sprouting homes or businesses that took up much of the Bend City Council’s time Wednesday night.

It was something else, known as accessory dwelling units, or ADUs — when a homeowner wants to build a smaller dwelling in the backyard, or above the garage — to care for aging family members close by, perhaps, or for younger family members who haven’t left, or have returned home.

ADUs are not new — the city has approved some 200 over the past 15 years, Senior Code Planner Pauline Hardie told councilors before Wednesday night’s public hearing.

But amid the city’s tight housing crunch, the city’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and Planning Commission have looked at ways to make ADUs somewhat easier to make happen, while still not hurting neighborhood livability.

A lot of progress toward consensus was made, but there still were a few sticking points for councilors to wrestle with Wednesday night, such as what parking spaces should be required and where.

There has been criticism of a recommendation that the city allow ADUs that meet the setback and other requirements to go up without a costly permit fee of several thousand dollars and intimidating conditional use permit process, including a neighborhood meeting. The committees had proposed eliminating that and allowing only what’s called a “minimum development standards” review.

Planning Commission member Karen Johnson told councilors the proposal before them “represents a compromise. We all know we need density — otherwise we’ll be like California and sprawl to the border. On the other hand, we don’t want trees cut down, lawns eliminated and massive buildings on small lots.”

One way around that is to set a minimum “floor area ratio,” a formula that takes into account more than just a building’s lot coverage but square footage as well, crucial for two-story ADUs.

Johnson noted the planning commission voted 4-3 to recommend keeping the current parking requirement, for one more on-site (off-street) parking space for an ADU.

MOst councilors appeared generally favorable to allowing “tandem parking” of cars in a single-car driveway to suffice for the second off-street parking space, rather than cover more open space with pavement. (Regular homes already are required to have two parking spots, though one can be on-street under certain conditions.)

Mayor Jim Clinton said it was all a balancing act. “In some ways we’re making it more restrictive, others less so, balancing the need for higher density with the concerns of people living in these neighborhoods.”

City planners also assured councilors and the public who testified that such added dwelling units must be secondary to a single-family home, and that they could not replace that home with a duplex or triplex and keep the ADU.

Talk about “efficiency measures” under the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) remand process – years after the state sent Bend’s UGB plan back for trying to add too much land — prompted Councilor Casey Roats to comment that local “elected officials only can do so much in the state of Oregon. I’d like to bring in a lot more ground, but we can’t.”

But colleague Barb Campbell said what really happened was that a previous council “tried to tell the state, ‘We are special, we don’t have to follow the (state land-use) law — and the state said, ‘Yes, you do.'”

Councilor Doug Knight, who has fought hard for neighborhood livability, lost some debate points (at least for now), as councilors appeared ready to allow larger ADUs, up to 800 square feet, on lots larger than 6,000 square feet. They also didn’t back his idea of requiring another off-street parking spot for such bigger ADUs, since they are likely to have two bedrooms.

“I don’t like it — this is something the ‘invisible hand’ of the market will take care of,” Campbell said. And colleague Victor Chudowsky added, “I think we’re using parking to restrict the number of these things.”

Councilors also appear ready to not require that costlier “Type 2” conditional use permit, which sends city notice to all neighbors within 250 feet, or back Knight in his support of another option, a “courtesy notification” for immediate neighbors, so as not to further hamstring and prevent ADUs from happening.

In general, councilors agreed with those who don’t want the ADU standards to be more stringent than the rules governing typical single-family homes or major remodeling projects.

However, it does appear they will agree to some ADU design standards that keep such outdoor living spaces as patios and balconies from being positioned so as to look down or into neighboring backyards, and instead require they face inward on the lot.

The council decided at the end of the night to keep the written record for comments open until 5 p.m. Feb. 1 and take more public testimony at its Feb. 3 meeting, when it hopes to hold a “first reading” on the new ADU rules..