SANDPOINT — One sentence dominated the conversation of accessory dwelling units during the June 21 City Council meeting, which led council members to table the motion to approve proposed changes to the city’s ADU ordinance.

“The design of any accessory dwelling unit must be compatible with the existing neighborhood by taking into account height, bulk, and site location and incorporating materials, colors and design motif that is compatible with and complements the architectural theme and style of the principle dwelling unit,” was the sentence that stumped council members, who were unsure of the implications it would carry.

“There are two reasons that I don’t like it,” said councilman Stephen Snedden. “One is the subjectivity of it; I think that makes it difficult for people to predict compliance when they are going through the design process. And second of all, the fact that it really contains two standards; one is a match of the ADU with the existing neighborhood, and the other is a match of the ADU with the principle dwelling unit, which could be different.”

The discussion came about during a presentation by Aaron Qualls, planning and economic development director, in regards to proposed changes in the city’s ADU ordinance, Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 8.

The ADU ordinance went into effect in 2009, and the proposed amendments by the planning commission reflect code cleanups, clarifying language, eliminating redundancies and relaxation of design standards. ADUs are described as “a habitable living unit added to, created within, or detached from a single-family dwelling that provides basic requirements for living sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.” There are currently between 45-50 ADUs in Sandpoint, 25 of which were built before the ordinance went into effect, Qualls said.

Some of the design standard changes, if approved, would include that exterior finish materials must match primary dwelling unit, adding “only when attached, but not when detached.” One suggested deletion was that the detached ADUs must have a matching roof pitch, windows, trim, eaves, and exterior finish materials. The added sentence that became the center of discussion would supplement proposed deletions.

Qualls said the added sentence is more subjective, and any plans for ADUs must be approved by the planning department. With the added sentence, it gives him more leeway to decide what is compatible.

Councilwoman Deb Ruehle was unsure, since the existing regulations were not an issue, why it would need revised. Council President Shannon Williamson also concerned about the subjectivity of the sentence.

“By not having specifics of ‘you have to match exactly the shape and structure and all the details of the main dwelling specifically,’ this is really describing that part of the code, but I don’t feel like this sentence is really necessary,” Williamson said.

Councilman Thomas Eddy agreed that too much subjectivity could lead to potential problems down the road.

Council members made a motion to strike the sentence, but because it took the place of the objective standards throughout the ordinance, decided to table it until the July 19 meeting.

The group also looked at the cottage ordinance, which was adopted in 2011 to provide opportunities for a variety of housing choices, including the need for more diverse and affordable housing. Cottage developments are also called “pocket neighborhoods,” Qualls said.

No design changes were proposed in the cottage ordinance. Some of the proposed changes included increasing density from 1.7 units per single family home allowed in a zone to two units per zone, and increasing the maximum allowed units in a development from 12 to 24.

“No one has taken advantage of this ordinance,” Qualls said. “Primarily what we hear from developers and property owners is the numbers don’t add up with the density allowance … There are not a whole lot of parcels in town where this ordinance could apply.”

Council members unanimously approved the amendments to the cottage ordinance.

The final ordinance the group looked at last week surrounded short-term rental of dwelling units. House Bill 216 was recently signed into law, which Qualls said limits the city’s ability to restrict vacation rentals.

“There are some concerns with that bill, some confusion around it legally that we want to get to the bottom of,” Qualls said.

Proposed changes on the ordinance were tabled until July 19 as well.

Mary Malone can be reached by email at mmalone@bonnercountydailybee.com and follow her on Twitter @MaryDailyBee.