Letter to the Editor RE: LFP ADU/DADU Ordinance

Dear Council Members,

It is gratifying to see a final draft ordinance pertaining to ADU development in our community. The culmination of efforts taken by both Council and Planning Commission in contributing to providing homeowners a clear path to adding an ADU on their property addresses solutions to citizens and city priorities alike. In review of the 2nd draft ordinance to be discussed during the regular council meeting Thursday (24th), my comments are as follows:

1) The language for ADU occupancy limit is not defined in the draft but could easily be addressed by stating “ADU rental agreements must be for a duration of three months or longer”. This will encourage family occupancy, affordable housing and will address neighborhood privacy issues while still recognizing the occasional need for temporary rentals such as summer rental for visitors or transferred families seeking quarter while searching for a home.

2) In order to address ADU lot location, safety, utility and taxation purposes, the “ADU must have a permanent foundation”. This will restrict use of Mobil Home or non-comforting, non-taxable housing.

3) The occupancy capacity for the primary home currently exists but it does not include an ADU occupant provision for capacity. The Washington State occupancy for ADU family is 1 per 200 sq.ft. The council may choose to create another ruling or simply refer to the state rule.

4) In previous deliberations concerning ADU compatibility with the primary residence, it was decided to drop compatibility for construction components such as roof, siding, window, porch elements as being too difficult to match due to supply or cost conditions. The one component requirement that would not present construction issues would be to match the paint color of ADU to those of the principle house. This addition would prevent neighboring visual complaints for offensive, non-comparable colorations. (Purple, Red, etc.) and could be added to the draft as a “condition for compatibility in surrounding neighborhoods’.’

In closing, it should be feasible for Council to add immediate language to the draft that addresses the four examples presented and exposing those prior to the public hearing portion, before any Council action for ordinance approval.

Thank you for allowing these comments for consideration to be included in the final ordinance. This ordinance will determine the future impacts of density in our community. Thank you again for your thoughtful deliberations. Respectfully, Jack Tonkin. 17840 33rd Ave NE, LFP. (55 year resident)