This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
They are good for homeowners but bad for neighborhoods. They offer flexibility and extra income for families but harm surrounding property values and spawn parking problems.
Those are just some of the conflicting sentiments surrounding the Salt Lake City Council's conundrum over so-called "mother-in-law" apartments — dwellings attached to single-family homes.
The council is weighing two proposed ordinances that deal with these accessory dwelling units, or ADUs. One would reverse a 1995 action that outlawed them altogether. A second would legalize such apartments that now exist in violation of city code in practically every neighborhood.
Urban planners posit that ADUs are an efficient and environmentally friendly way to add density to residential areas. Such apartments, they note, permit older residents to stay in their homes by renting out a self-contained apartment. They also allow families to house an aging relative who cannot continue to live at home — hence the mother-in-law label.
"We designed our infrastructure to accommodate more people per unit than we have now," said Arthur C. Nelson, director of the University of Utah's Metropolitan Research Center. "The average household size has been declining. This would raise it back to where it was in the 1970s."
But some neighborhood activists, including former City Councilwoman Sydney Fonnesbeck, of the Greater Avenues Community Council, contend that ADUs undercut the fabric of neighborhoods by boosting density, traffic and impact on schools. Fonnesbeck and others rescued the historic nature of the Avenues during the 1970s and '80s by reducing zoning density and saving more single-family homes from being cut up into duplexes.
"We've tried this and it was disastrous to our neighborhood," she said of the proposal to bring back ADUs to the Avenues. "Twenty years from now, people are going to say, 'Who in the hell did this?' "
Further, Fonnesbeck said, the mother-in-law tag is a misnomer because family members can move into relatives' homes legally without creating separate apartments. And most ADU tenants are unrelated to property owners.
Historically, she said, houses that added ADUs were eventually sold to speculators as duplexes when original owners died or moved.
If the proposed ADU ordinance passes, "there will be no single-family neighborhoods in Salt Lake City," Fonnesbeck warned. "At some given time, you might have four college students living next door."
But Council Chairman Soren Simonsen, who supports the measure, counters that the proposed ordinance offers protections to ensure houses with ADUs remain owner occupied. Beyond that, he said, the plan caps new ADUs at 25 citywide per year.
"Every neighborhood in Salt Lake City already has these units, and they fulfill an important need," Simonsen said. "There is a lot of demand for them."
The ADU proposal by Mayor Ralph Becker is not up-zoning, according to his chief of staff, David Everitt.
"This is a quality-of-life argument that is separate but related to sustainability," Everitt said. "To characterize the addition of 25 units per year as the end of single-family zoning is a bit much."
The council heard a chorus of criticism last week from members of various community councils who don't favor ADUs and say the city has never enforced such ordinances.
For example, dozens of ADUs just west of the University of Utah seem to be completely unregulated, said Esther Hunter, of the East Central Community Council.
"The biggest issue for me is life/safety," she said. "Many of these are illegal and do not meet [building] code."
Citywide, she said, there are about 2,200 ADUs that have been flagged for noncompliance. Before passing new ordinances, Hunter would like the administration to bring them into compliance or close them.
She recognizes the city's dilemma when seeking to legalize existing ADUs that don't meet codes. "How do they take away a property right from a landowner?" she asked. "But if we grandfather them in, it rewards those who broke the law."
Councilwoman Jill Remington Love concedes the city's ability to enforce ADU regulations looms large.
"We don't have the resources for enforcement," she said. "We do have neighborhoods that were dense with multifamily units, and they do struggle with them. We have to look to those lessons and listen to the people."
By contrast, many in Councilman Carlton Christensen's west-side district, which includes the Fairpark neighborhood, would like to add ADUs. But Christensen said the issue is so contentious that critics could prevail over planners.
"Any conclusion we come to has the potential for a split vote," possibly in mid-May, he said.
Christensen believes a solution could lie in amending the proposed ADU ordinance to limit ADUs to within a half-mile of mass-transit rail lines. That would allow some neighborhoods — such as Fairpark near the new North Temple TRAX line — to add ADUs, while restricting them in areas like the Avenues, where there is no light rail.
"We could live with that," Fonnesbeck said.
Proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance
Allows apartments attached to single-family houses.
Provides housing opportunities for changing family needs.
Increases dwelling units in neighborhoods.
Proposed unit legalization ordinance.
Modifies standards to legalize exceptions to zoning ordinances.
Sets life/safety standards for units attached to single-family houses.
Allows city to regulate units that have been outside codes.