Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Setbacks & Owner Occupancy Requirements

Provide comments on: 1) the proposed amendment to allow an ADU to have the same setback as a detached garage, shed, etc.; and 2) Should a property owner be allowed to lease an ADU and single-family home that are on the same lot to different persons, or be required to live in the ADU or the home?

This topic is closed

2 registered statements

Enoque Pereira Costa sobrinho Júnior inside City Limits

April 17, 2021, 5:51 PM

Making it easier to build ADUs makes sense to me.

Tyler Denham inside City Limits

April 12, 2021, 10:52 AM

The city should make it as easy as possible to build ADUs, as they are a nice way to add affordable housing in residential neighborhoods. In that spirit, I support all of the updates in PZ-21-00066, with just a few small quibbles:
1. Allow ADUs that encroach into the required setback to have the same height (28') as others
2. Allow the encroachment to exceed 50 percent of the required setback (end notes on Table 10-50.40.020.A)
3. The allowable encroachments for many of the entries in Table 10-50.40.020.A should be more than 5'.

Also, with regards to the property owner occupancy requirements - these should be removed from the code. Second home owners are a common bogeyman in discussions on affordable housing, but they own a large share of residential properties in Flagstaff and are likely in a better position than most to finance construction of an ADU. Banning them from adding more housing on their properties is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Flagstaff Community Forum is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Flagstaff Community Forum is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.