Loading...
pc-agenda-jan-10-22       REGULAR MEETING AGENDA  Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote  options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting  during the planned public comment sections.   *Majority of the Commissioners will attend the meeting in the Council Chambers, one member  requires greater social distancing and they will be located in the Manager’s Conference Room.  Both rooms are accessible to the public.    Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching  on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001  and entering access code 2468 512 9151.   Members of the public wishing to address the Commission remotely have two options:   • Via web stream ‐ Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment  sections.   • Via phone ‐ Call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting code 2468 512 9151. Press *3 to raise your  hand during public comment sections.    1. Call to Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  December 13, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting    4. Informal Public Hearing – Rezone Properties to Achieve Compliance with the 2040 Comp Plan  Applicant: City of Golden Valley  Address: Lewis Road and Post Office    5. Discussion – Outdoor Service Areas    6. Discussion – Accessory Dwelling Units  – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –  To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 2468 512 9151.    7. Council Liaison Report    8. Other Business  a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings    9. Adjournment  January 10, 2022 – 7 pm  Council Chambers  Hybrid Meeting    1      Date:  January 10, 2022  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:    Informal Public Hearing – Rezone Properties to Achieve Conformance with the  2040 Comprehensive Plan      Summary  Staff is requesting that four properties be considered for rezoning in order to come into  conformance with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.    Background  State statute requires that all zoning designations be updated to be consistent with the land uses  identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Most properties have already been rezoned and these  changes represent modifications that were on hold while the City’s Downtown Small Area Plan  was completed.    Analysis  The ten properties under consideration represent two areas – the first are the properties along  Lewis Road in the northwest quadrant of the downtown and the other is the U.S. post office  property at 7701 Golden Valley Road. They both demonstrate a desire on the part of the City to  better align the zoning designations with current and future uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan  put forward these land use designations as part of the approved Future Land Use Map.     2    Group 1  The nine parcels that line Lewis Road in the northwest quadrant of the downtown have  historically been light industrial uses. In the early 2000s, a bank (PUD 96) was constructed on  the corner of Lewis Road, 10th Avenue North, and Winnetka Ave. A second light industrial  building, along with an associated parking lot, were recently converted for use as self storage.  Bassett Creek runs to the south of these properties and could provide a future setting for a  public trail.    Changing the zoning from primarily Light Industrial to Neighborhood Mixed Use better positions  the area for future redevelopment with residential and service uses to compliment and  strengthen the downtown area.  Address Current Zoning Current Use Proposed Zoning  945 Winnetka Ave N Light Industrial Bank MU‐N  8043 Lewis Road Light Industrial Rug cleaners MU‐N  8105 Lewis Road Light Industrial Light manufacturing MU‐N  8125 Lewis Road Light Industrial Light manufacturing MU‐N  8145 Lewis Road Light Industrial Light manufacturing MU‐N  8165 Lewis Road Light Industrial Light manufacturing MU‐N  8175 Lewis Road Commercial Garage door sales/service MU‐N  8100 10th Ave N Industrial Self storage lot MU‐N  8121 10th Ave N Light Industrial Self storage MU‐N  3      Group 2  The U.S. post office is located at the corner of Golden Valley Road and Rhode Island Ave N. Prior  to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the property had been guided for use as a Public Facility. That  category changed to become Institutional – Civic on the most recent land use map, but the  zoning has remained Commercial for decades. The proposed rezoning would bring the  designation into alignment with the approved land use.  Address Current Zoning Current Use Proposed Zoning  7701 Golden Valley Road Commercial Post office Institutional ‐ Civic    Should the City chose not to rezone any of these properties, an amendment to the Future Land  Use Map would then be required with the Met Council – modifying the recently‐adopted 2040  Comprehensive Plan – in order to maintain consistency between guided land use and zoning.    Recommended Action  Staff recommends approval of amendments to the Zoning Map to rezone the identified  properties along Lewis Road to Neighborhood Mixed Use as well as the post office at 7701  Golden Valley Road from Commercial to Institutional ‐ Civic.    Attachments  List of Affected Properties (1 page)  Maps of Future Land Use and Existing Zoning Designations (1 page)  List of Affected Properties Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 945 Winnetka Ave N Light Industrial Neighborhood Mixed Use 8043 Lewis Road Light Industrial Neighborhood Mixed Use 8105 Lewis Road Light Industrial Neighborhood Mixed Use 8125 Lewis Road Light Industrial Neighborhood Mixed Use 8145 Lewis Road Light Industrial Neighborhood Mixed Use 8165 Lewis Road Light Industrial Neighborhood Mixed Use 8175 Lewis Road Commercial Neighborhood Mixed Use 8100 10th Ave N Industrial Neighborhood Mixed Use 8121 10th Ave N Light Industrial Neighborhood Mixed Use 7701 Golden Valley Road Commercial Institutional - Civic Future Land Use Current Zoning   1      Date:  January 10, 2022  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:    Outdoor Service Areas – Discussion      Summary  Spurred by a request from Schuller’s Tavern to explore options to allow outdoor seating at 7345  Country Club Drive, staff began work in 2021 to develop a new temporary outdoor service area  use that could be applied throughout the City. The Planning Commission discussed this idea  generally at three meetings and the concept was presented at a City Council Work Session in  November. At that meeting, the Council expressed support for moving forward with a Zoning  Text Amendment that would allow temporary Outdoor Service Areas in some zoning districts.  The purpose of this memo is to recap what was discussed in 2021 in advance of an upcoming  public hearing.    Background  Schuller’s has operated as a nonconforming use (a restaurant within a single‐family zoning  district) for many decades. In recent years, the owners have sought to find a way to utilize  outdoor space for seating and dining. Due to the existing nonconforming status, this would be  considered an illegal expansion of the restaurant use.    In search of solutions, the idea was raised to explore the possibility of creating an interim – or  temporary – use within the Zoning Chapter and potentially applying the concept to this property.  Interim uses are those which are temporary in nature and are allowed to exist for a pre‐ determined period of time. They can be targeted to specific aspects of individual zoning districts.  If workable, this idea could provide a focused solution to the current problem without exposing  the wider neighborhood to potentially greater impacts.    Staff also notes that COVID restrictions for restaurants and other retail/service uses in 2020 and  20201 resulted in the creation of Temporary Outdoor Service Area permits for use across the city.  These permits – reviewed and approved by staff in Planning, Inspections, and Fire – allowed for  outdoor seating/dining and retail sales using creative and temporary arrangements in parking lots  and other areas.  2    Temporary Outdoor Service Areas  As discussed previously, the concept of a new temporary outdoor service area use would  complement the City’s other current Temporary Uses found in Section 113‐31 of the City Code:  Mobile Food Vending, Seasonal Farm Produce Sales, and Temporary Retail Sales. It would need to  be consistent with the criteria for interim uses outlined in Minnesota Statute 462.3597. There, an  interim use is defined as “a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence  of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it.” A city may set conditions on  interim uses, but may only grant permission for an interim use of property if:  (1) the use conforms to the zoning regulations;  (2) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;  (3) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for  the public to take the property in the future; and  (4) the user agrees to and conditions that the governing body deems appropriate for  permission of the use.    In order to comply with these criteria, the Zoning Chapter would need to be amended in two  ways. First, the Outdoor Service Area use would need to be listed as a permitted use in each  zoning district where it would be applied. Second, new text would need to be added to the  Temporary Use section of code that detailed the process for application and approval.    Staff previously recommended allowing temporary Outdoor Service Areas in all residential zoning  districts, as well as in Commercial and Mixed‐Use zoning districts. This would allow all restaurants  as well as other retail businesses the opportunity to potentially take advantage of this option.    Additional Information  Staff examined other businesses in Golden Valley that have outdoor seating. All of them take  place entirely on private property and utilize permanent patio space constructed specifically for  this purpose. Staff involvement with respect to the “approval” of these areas typical revolves  around ensuring compliance with accessibility requirements, confirming minimum parking counts  are not impacted, evaluating potential stormwater impacts due to increased impervious  coverage, and updating liquor licensing and insurance information to reflect an expanded service  area.    Staff is not aware of any businesses that currently utilize outdoor space for retail sales, though if  this were to be pursued it would likely not require any additional City approvals beyond the  considerations of accessibility, parking, and potential stormwater impacts mentioned above.    If temporary outdoor service areas are to be approved via a public hearing, specific regulations  that attempt to mitigate impacts would not be spelled out in the zoning text, but would be  developed on a case by case basis as part of the proposal evaluation by staff, the Planning  Commission, and the City Council. In general, staff would examine potential impacts to parking,  hours of operation, lighting, noise, visual screening, etc. It is likely that the City Council would also  be asked to make findings that the proposed use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan  3    and not injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise impact the general public  health, welfare, or safety.    Conclusion  Given the ability for most businesses to install outdoor seating or to conduct outdoor sales  without going through an extensive approval process, staff believes it is unlikely the temporary  Outdoor Service Area option would be pursued outside of the well‐known situation at Schuller’s.  The City Council supports this action and has directed the Planning Commission to finalize zoning  language for consideration at a public hearing.    Staff Request  Staff is looking for feedback and discussion on the draft language attached regarding Temporary  uses. Future consideration of a zoning text amendment is expected.    Attachments  Selected draft language from Section 113‐31 – Temporary Uses (3 pages)    Sec. 113-1. - Definitions. Outdoor Service Area: A defined space intended to provide outdoor seating/dining at a bar or restaurant, or to allow for retail sales or services to be performed outside of a principal structure. Outdoor service areas are not allowed in association with home occupations. Sec. 113-31. - Temporary Uses. (a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to provide conditions under which certain temporary uses may be allowed while ensuring a minimum negative impact to neighboring land uses. (b) Permitted Temporary Uses. (1) Mobile food vending. (2) Seasonal farm produce sales. (3) Temporary retail sales. (4) Outdoor service areas. (c) Prohibited Temporary Uses. Temporary family health care dwellings, as defined in State law, are prohibited in all zoning districts. (d) General Requirements. (1) Mobile Food Vending. […] (2) All Seasonal Farm Produce Sales. […] (3) Temporary Retail Sales. […] (4) Outdoor Service Areas. A permit for an outdoor service area may be granted after approval by the City Council and with any necessary conditions that prevent or minimize injurious effects upon the neighborhood. All permits for outdoor service areas shall be subject to the following conditions: a. An outdoor service area shall be allowed only in a zoning district for which it is listed as a permitted use. b. An application for an outdoor service area permit may be made by any governmental body, department, board, or commission, or by any person, individual or corporate, having a legal interest in the property described in the application. Each property site shall require its own application. Single applications may not be made for noncontiguous or scattered sites. c. The City Manager or their designee shall refer the application to the Planning Commission to hold an informal public hearing. The applicant and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject site shall be notified of the informal public hearing by the U.S. mail, not less than 10 days prior to the date of this informal public hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time, and place of the hearing and shall identify the subject site. d. The Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the City Council based upon any or all of the following factors (which need not be weighed equally) and shall present its findings and recommendations to the City Council in writing: (1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (2) Effect upon property values in the neighboring area. (3) Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area. (4) Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use. (5) Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use. (6) Any increase in pests, including flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed use. (7) Visual appearance of any pr oposed structure or use. (8) Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. e. The City Council shall take no action on the application until it receives the Planning Commission's recommendation, or unti l 60 days after such application has been submitted to the Planning Commission. Upon receiving the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, or the elapse of said 60 -day period, the City Council shall call and conduct an official public hearing to consider the application. f. Notice of the official public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time, and place of the hearing an d shall reasonably identify the subject site. In addition, copies of the written notice in the form published shall be mailed to the applicant and to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject site not less than 10 days prior to the date of such official public hearing. g. The City Council shall make findings and shall grant or deny a permit based upon any or all of the factors found above. The City Council may make its approval of the permit contingent upon such conditions as it determines necessar y to prevent or minimize injurious effects upon the neighborhood. The City Council may also require that sufficient performance bonding by an acceptable surety be supplied by the property owner to ensure satisfactory compliance with the conditions imposed by the conditional use permit. h. The City Council shall set forth in writing its decision, and the specific reasons for such decisions, following the official public hearing. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the City Council's decision. If th e application is denied in whole or in part or conditions are imposed, the reasons for such denial or for the imposition of conditions, shall accompany this notification. i. No application which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date of said denial, except on the grounds of new evidence or upon proof of changes of conditions. Each resubmission shall constitute a new filing and a new filing fee in an amount adopted by resolution of the City Council sha ll be required. j. Unless extended by the City Council in its sole discretion for an additional period of up to six months, construction and all other pertinent implementation relating to an approved outdoor service area permit must begin within three months of the date that the outdoor service area permit is approved or the outdoor service area permit shall be deemed null and void. If the approved outdoor service area use should cease for a period of more than six consecutive months, the outdoor service area permit shall be deemed to have expired. k. An outdoor service area permit shall expire and the use terminate at the earlier of: (1) The expiration date established by the City Council at the time of approval, but in no event more than two years from the date of approval; (2) The occurrence of any event identified in the outdoor service area permit for the termination of the use; or (3) Upon an amendment of the City Code that no longer allows the outdoor service area. l. Changes to an approved outdoor service area permit other than minor changes shall require amendment to the outdoor service area permit by the City. The requirements for application and approval of a n outdoor service area permit amendment shall be the same as the requirements for original application and approval. m. The City Council shall have the right to revoke or suspend any outdoor service area permit whenever the terms or conditions of such permit have been violated or broken. All such action by the City Council to revoke or suspend an outdoor service area permit shall be by means of a majority affirmative vote of City Council Members. n. The initial term of an outdoor service area permit must not exceed one year. Upon application for an extension of the same use on the same site, succeeding outdoor service area permits may be approved for up to two years each if the Planning Commission and City Council make the findings set forth above and also find that all previo us conditions of approval have been satisfied.     Date:  January 10, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:  Accessory Dwelling Units   Summary   Following a set of three discussions on Accessory Dwelling Units by the Planning Commission over  the summer of 2021, the topic went to the City Council at its October Council Work Session. The  Council at that meeting affirmed its desire to see an ordinance put in place to allow and regulate  these types of uses within the R‐1 and R‐2 residential zoning districts.   This memo will provide additional background on the discussions at both bodies to date, as well  as begin the discussion with the Planning Commission on the regulations and controls to be  placed on ADUs.   Background   As a brief reminder, an Accessory Dwelling Unit is often defined as a subordinate unit that shares  a parcel of land with an existing home, most typically an existing detached single‐family home.  ADUs are handled differently in terms of regulation by most municipalities, but one almost  universal restriction is on the allowed maximum floor area, which is included to prevent the ADU  from being out of scale with the existing home. In discussing ADUs it’s common to see them  described in three ways:  Internal – The ADU is located fully within the existing home’s structure, such as a basement  conversion.   Attached – The ADU shares one or more walls with the primary home, but can also include  additions to the home, or conversion of an attached garage.  Detached – The ADU is a freestanding structure from the home, either an entirely new‐build  structure or the conversion of a detached garage. This also includes above‐garage additions  separate from the main structure.  2    These three options range in both their visibility and their cost. An internal ADU has the lowest  costs and the least impact on existing exterior finish of a home. A detached structure will be  costly to build and also be a more noticeable change overall for neighbors.    Commission and Council Discussions  In its review of ADUs over the summer, the Planning Commission had a number of questions still  outstanding when it was sent along to the City Council for further direction on developing an  ordinance. Generally, Commissioners were supportive of the idea of allowing ADUs with sensible  restrictions. Commissioners were undecided on the value and the potential impacts of detached  ADUs, and had asked staff to investigate existing conditions of detached accessory structures.  There was also a number of discussions hinging on what balance to strike with the ordinance:  accessibility for those who wanted to add an ADU, versus protections for neighbors and residents  impacted by new construction and people in established neighborhoods. Another area  outstanding was the discussion of permit/review requirements: should ADUs be allowed by‐right,  by conditional use permit, or with some special permit? Should only detached have added review  requirements, or set one standard for all three types of ADU?  At their Work Session, the City Council voiced full support for the adoption of an ADU ordinance.  There were some questions and concerns raised, but generally the Council was not turned away  by the prospect of adding some additional density to existing single‐family neighborhoods. They  saw ADUs as a chance to add opportunities both for existing residents and to allow younger  renters to access some of its more traditionally owner‐occupied neighborhoods.   Some members of the Council voiced hesitation to allow for detached units, fearing the impact  they may have visually or on neighboring properties. This were similar to concerns raised at the  Planning Commission. This was not the opinion of all Council Members, however, and the Council  requested the Planning Commission examine the potential for detached units and address them  in its recommendation on the final ordinance. By having more information and a formal  ordinance language to respond to, they might have an easier time evaluating the value/cost of  detached ADUs.  The question of short‐term rentals (Airbnb, Vrbo) also came up during the discussion. Currently  the City does not regulate these types of short‐term housing, although the Council asked for the  existence of these types of use to be considered in discussion around ADUs. Beyond the added  context for the discussion on ordinance language, any tackling of short‐term rentals would  involve code changes outside the Zoning Chapter.  Finally, the Council also weighed the issue of making ADUs accessible while protecting neighbors.  Council made clear that they wanted the ordinance to be accessible to homeowners, and not  have the City Code be what stops a person from considering an ADU. At the same time, they  were aware of the potential for impacts on neighbors, such as with detached units. While not  favoring one side over the other, the message from the Council seemed to be they wanted an  ordinance that established objective boundaries to what would be allowed as an ADU, in order to  protect neighbors, while making the process for building and using that ADU simpler on the  homeowner.  3      Ordinance Considerations  Based on the discussion so far, it seems that one of the key objectives for any ADU ordinance  adopted by the City should be to lay out an ordinance that can be applied consistently across  different ADU applications, for a few reasons:   A standardized regulation (such as a limit on floor area) can cap the scale of an ADU,  helping to minimize impacts to neighboring properties when set reasonably.   Consistency in code leads to less case‐by‐case subjectivity in review, which can put off  homeowners who don’t know what to expect from the process.   It is useful for officials to make findings of fact and to justify approving or denying an ADU  project in cases with large or contradictory public input.   From an accessibility standpoint, most zoning regulations will control the scale or form of  the unit, but not be a barrier to adoption.  As a starting point for the ordinance, we can refer to those communities in the Twin Cities which  had adopted an ADU ordinance as of 2019 (a table of these communities was shared with  commissioners in their last meeting on the topic and is again attached with this memo). At the  last meeting, a Commissioner highlighted the Minnetonka regulations as a starting point for the  ordinance discussion. A copy of the verbatim code section is also included as an attachment.  Minnetonka’s ADU ordinance falls somewhere in the middle of the range when it comes to  ordinances adopted by Twin Cities’ communities. Notably they do not allow detached ADUs and  also require a conditional use permit for all ADUs, but at the same time they do not have a  minimum lot size, don’t explicitly require added parking, and allow ADUs to connect to the  primary home’s water/sewer connections (cheaper than a new street connection). They set a  maximum floor area for the ADU at either 35% of the gross living area of the home (including the  ADU) or 950 SF, whichever is smaller.   Structure Scale and Location Regulations  Most ADU codes in the region include this floor area limit, or some variation on it. Occasionally,  internal and attached ADUs will have a different limit from detached, and some codes only have a  flat sq. ft. cap without any percentage calculation for the rest of the structure. A max floor area,  in conjunction with existing setback and lot cover requirements, is the principal controlling factor  on the scale of the ADU allowed.   Using the 35% of gross floor area (GFA) or 950 sq. ft., it’s likely that the majority of homes in the  city would be limited based on the percentage of GFA. A home with a GFA of 2,717 would be the  smallest home possible for which a 950sq.ft. limit on the ADU would apply. Smaller homes would  have correspondingly smaller allowances for their ADU floor area.      4    GFA 35% of GFA  2,500 875  2,000 700  1,500 525  1,000 350    For internal and attached ADUs the most common methodology is to apply the same  setback/building envelope requirements that would be applied to the rest of the main structure.  Whether you are expanding a kitchen, or adding an ADU, you are working within the same  parameters and keeping the same dedicated open space as with any residential addition. The  question of setbacks becomes more complicated for detached ADUs. Detached ADUs can use the  same setbacks as for other accessory structures like garages, or they can have their own specific  setback requirements, such as a larger rear or side setback. A number of communities which  allow detached ADUs restrict their location by requiring they be attached to an approved garage,  such as in Richfield and Roseville. This has the benefit of reducing the number of individual  buildings on a single parcel. At the last meeting on ADUs, Commissioners asked how many  existing detached garages exist in the city today. The city’s most recent set of GIS data for  structure footprints highlighted 813 detached garages. Based on the total number of residential  lots in the City (6,840) this is roughly 12% of properties.  The story is similar for other common zoning regulations for residential properties such as height  or lot cover. For attached ADUs, you apply the zoning standard for the principal structure. Doing  so means the ADU should not drastically impact the appearance of the home beyond what was  already possible under code, the only difference being the allowance for a second kitchen and  the added household members.   Exterior Finish and Character Regulations  To further reduce visual impacts, most communities establish standards for exterior finish. Code  regulating exterior finish can be challenging, as it often can become subjective. Compare these  two sections of code, one from the Minnetonka Ordinance and the other Richfield.   Exterior changes to the house must not substantially alter the single‐family character of the  structure;  The primary exterior materials of an attached accessory dwelling unit must match those of the  principal structure. Exterior materials for new construction related to any type of accessory  dwelling unit must match the structure to which it is attached;  Both are establishing standards for exterior finish for an ADU addition, but the second provides a  more objective one, whereas the first is more up to interpretation. Staff’s preference for any  material or aesthetic requirements would be to have concise language regarding matching  materials between the addition and the home, with our categories also potentially useful to  include (roof pitch, eaves and details, windows).  5    To again use Minnetonka as an example, a handful of communities also include regulations that  require the ADU not impact neighborhood character. The Minnetonka ordinance includes:  to be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the accessory unit will not have an undue  adverse impact on adjacent properties and where there will not be a substantial alteration of the  character of the neighborhood  While intended to protect neighboring properties from impacts, this type of ordinance language  is very difficult to review. The language is open‐ended, with different persons perhaps having  different definitions for what constitutes an “undue adverse impact.” Whether reviewed solely by  staff, or also by appointed and elected officials, this adds a layer of subjectivity that can  complicate decision‐making. The intention should be that the ADU ordinance is itself structured  to mitigate any adverse impacts, along with the rest of the code which may apply (rental  licensing, nuisance language, etc.).  Parking  Almost all communities require some type of additional parking for ADUs, and while sometimes  looked at critically by ADU advocates, as a barrier to adoption, this is not necessarily the case in  all ordinances. For one, the ordinance could have minimal requirements for an ADU, such as in  Roseville, Burnsville, or Crystal, which all just require 1 additional space over the district  minimum for an ADU. Parking can become more burdensome if the code requires these spaces  be within an enclosed garage, and not just off‐street. Golden Valley requires 2 spaces per  dwelling unit currently, and all new build homes must demonstrate at least the capacity for a  two‐car garage. Single‐car garages are common throughout the city, while a smaller sub‐set of  homes have 3 or 4 car garages. A parking requirement like that found in Lakeville, where 3  enclosed spaces for both the ADU and home must be provided, would eliminate most existing  homes within the city.  Some form of minimum parking requirement would likely be beneficial in Golden Valley. The city,  and especially its residential neighborhoods, are only served on a limited basis by public  transportation and most residents travel via car to work or retail areas. In addition, winter  parking restrictions city‐wide limit the availability of on‐street parking for a portion of the year.  Requiring 3‐4 minimum spaces for a property with an ADU would likely not require additional  paving and already match how larger families/families with children of driving age are using their  parking spaces. Not requiring the additional parking to be enclosed spaces is a benefit from an  accessibility standpoint. And while two spaces may not be necessary for an ADU housing elderly  family members who don’t own a vehicle, the same ADU could be used as a rental in the future,  so it makes sense to plan for all potential uses.   Other Regulations in Use  While uncommon, some of the communities included in the 2019 tables included a minimum lot  size requirement in their ADU ordinance, effectively eliminating any lots under that area from  being eligible. A minimum lot size requirement is considered by ADU advocates to be a regulatory  barrier, by design shrinking the pool of eligible parcels. Despite this, there may be some value in  setting a limit for some of the smallest parcels within the city. While smaller lots will naturally  6    have less flexibility to add any additions to the home, removing them entirely eliminates any  chance of overcrowding. The decision on whether to include a minimum lot area, to staff, seems  to come down to whether detached ADUs would be allowed. Whereas an internal ADU is likely to  have little visual impact whether it is on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot or a 5,000 sq. ft. one, an additional  out‐structure, potentially in addition to a detached garage, would have a much more significant  visual impact on a smaller lot.   Another common topic of discussion is how to regulate sewer and water connections for the new  ADU – whether to have it connect via the principal structure or a new stub to the utility in the  public right‐of‐way. Connecting to the home is a far less costly option, but can also raise issues if  the main home becomes delinquent in their utility payments. Shutting off the water to the main  home also shuts off water for the ADU. On the flip side, adding a new connection to the city  utility is expensive, and adds a new maintenance item to track for the property owner. But since  the connection is completely separate, there is no danger of impacting services for one or the  other. This question also seems to fall somewhat on urban‐suburban‐rural lines. Most rural  communities explicitly state a connection to the home is required and disallow private septic  systems, whereas some suburbs like Richfield and Plymouth allow internal and attached to  connect to the home, with detached connecting to the city supply. Staff will consult further with  Public Works and Building Inspections on if there is a preference from an operational standpoint  to require one method or another.   Finally, in almost all cities in the region, some type of owner‐occupancy requirement for the  principal structure exists. While not impactful for an ADU planned for a family member. This does  impact ADUs rented to another household, as it means that the property owner must live in the  main home, rather than renting both units. The intention is that having the owner on‐site might  allow greater oversight for the rented unit, respond faster to nuisance issues, etc. This is similar  to how City Code currently regulates the rental of individual boarding rooms but only when they  owner also resides in the dwelling. This owner‐occupancy requirement is less common  nationwide and some communities locally have, or are considering, removing it. The thinking  amongst ADU‐advocates is this type of limitation can disincentivize a potential ADU builder,  either by limiting their options over time to use the property, or in limiting their financing options  for construction.  By‐right, Special Permit, or Conditional Use  When discussing regulatory barriers to ADU development, advocates often highlight the level of  review required in order to build an ADU. As was recently discussed by the Commission during  our review of the zoning chapter’s land uses, a conditional use permit can be daunting to a  homeowner or businessperson who doesn’t work closely with local government. It typically  involves up front costs that may not be recouped if the permit is denied, and at least two  appearances in front of a public body and public audience. The intent with conditional use  permits, and to a lesser degree with special permits or restricted uses, is to provide an additional  level of scrutiny to uses “with characteristics which may be appropriate within a given zoning  district but which might have an unusual impact upon surrounding properties or which might  otherwise adversely affect the future development of the City or the general public health,  welfare, or safety of the property or residents therein.”  7    In terms of other local communities, the method of review for ADUs varies:  By‐Right Conditional Use Annual  Registration/Affidavit  Other Special Permit  Bloomington,  Burnsville, Chaska,  Crystal, Inver Grove  Heights, Lakeville,  Minneapolis,  Plymouth, Richfield,  Roseville  Apple Valley, Long  Lake, Minnetonka,  White Bear Lake  Eagan, St. Paul, White  Bear Lake  Shoreview, Stillwater    An alternative to added review at the front end of an ADU project, a smaller group of  communities have an Annual Registration requirement related to their owner‐occupancy  requirements. So while a property owner would need to register the ADU and maintain that  registration annually (similar to a rental license), there would not be the public hearing  requirements of a CUP or potentially a special permit.   When examining the 11 areas of review for a conditional use permit, some stand out more than  others in considering an ADU and its impacts.   (1) Demonstrated need for the proposed use.   (2) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the  City.    (3) Effect upon property values in the neighboring  area.  Potentially difficult to account for  via CUP. ADUs have a clear  positive impact to their own  property value, less of a clear  connection to surrounding  properties  (4) Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon  the current traffic flow and congestion in the area.  Additional people in a house can  mean additional traffic  (5) Effect of any increases in population and density  upon surrounding land uses.  ADUs allow for increased density  by design  (6) Compliance with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing  Policy (if applicable to the proposed use).    (7) Increase in noise levels to be caused by the  proposed use.    (8) Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be  caused by the proposed use.    (9) Any increase in pests, including flies, rats, or other  animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the  proposed use.    8    (10) Visual appearance of any proposed structure or  use.  Likely accounted for by any  exterior finish requirements  (11) Any other effect upon the general public health,  safety, and welfare of the City and its residents.      Staff’s first impression is that a strong starting point in the ordinance for attached and internal  ADUs would largely address any of the above highlighted concerns, and therefore not necessitate  a CUP. Visual impacts should be minimal for these types of ADUs, required off‐street parking  should address traffic concerns, and a percentage‐based floor area will help to ensure that any  ADU is in scale with the home it is being added to, again addressing population/traffic concerns.  If there are concerns that the rental of ADUs may cause impacts on surrounding property owners,  this may be more directly addressed through a combination of an owner‐occupancy requirement  and annual registration of the ADU.   If the City is interested in pursuing detached ADUs, these may be more suited to additional  scrutiny. These types of ADUs are considered more impactful on surrounding properties and  added review for these may be warranted based on the purpose of conditional uses.   Initial Staff Recommendations   Allow for attached and internal ADUs by right in the R‐1 and R‐2 zoning districts  o Consider allowing detached ADUs via conditional use permit in the R‐1 and R‐2  zoning districts   Consider developing a purpose statement for ADUs similar to Minnetonka    Hold internal and attached ADUs to the same site requirements from code as principal  structures (setbacks, building envelope, impervious surface)   Limit floor area to 33‐35% of gross floor area, or 950‐1000 sq. ft., whichever is less   Set objective but minimal design standards: matching materials, roof pitch matching the  predominant roofline   Require 1‐2 additional off‐street parking spaces for an ADU unit  o Conversion of garage space to support an ADU should not reduce the minimum  required off‐street parking amount.   Follow Public Works and Building Inspections recommendations regarding utility  connections; if none, potentially forgo a regulation   No minimum lot size requirement/minimal requirement such as 8‐9,000 sq. ft.   No additional lot cover requirement  Detached ADUs  Whereas the code can mostly fall back on its existing principal structure regulations for attached  and internal ADUs, detached types raise specific questions relating to code.    Are the existing setbacks for detached accessory structures (5 ft. from side and rear  property lines) sufficient?  o If different setbacks are established, how does this impact the convertibility of  existing detached structures?  9     Would detached accessory structures above a garage be allowed? To what height?  o Would a freestanding detached ADU be limited to the existing 10 ft. maximum, or  have its own max height allowance?    Would a detached ADU count towards the code’s 1,000 sq. ft. limit of accessory structures  (including garages) in R‐1 and R‐2, or would they only be limited based on a max floor  area, the same as internal ADUs?  Before fully diving into these more specialized topics. Staff wanted to get the overall thoughts of  Commissioners on the ADU ordinance, and what opportunities or challenges they saw with  detached units specifically.   Action Request  This item is not a public hearing or voting item. Staff is seeking specific feedback or questions  from Commissioners on the above ordinance discussion.  Attachments  Planning Commission Minutes from August 23, 2021 (2 pages)  ADU Information by City (FHF) (3 pages)  Copy of Minnetonka Accessory Apartment Ordinance (2 pages)  ADU Policy Brief (FHF) (6 pages)    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       9  MOTION made by Commissioner Baker to recommend denial of the Preliminary PUD Plan, based on  the determination that the required findings of approval had not been met. Commissioner Segelbaum  provided the specific findings and Baker noted especially Quality Site Planning, Efficiency, and  Preservation had not been met. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson.    The motion passed unanimously.     6. Discussion – Accessory Dwelling Units  Val Quarles, Community Development Intern, introduced the discussion. Quarles ran through the  areas in which the code could restrict and regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and which of those  fell under the zoning code, versus other sections of City code. The discussion also included comparison  with how other Minnesota communities have applied the regulations.   As a discussion item there was no recommended action for the Planning Commission, staff had a few  guiding questions for the Planning Commission to consider.    Chair Pockl asked if any commissioners had questions for staff. Commissioner Baker complimented  the presentation and asked about what community input had been gathered thus far. Quarles noted  that no official survey had been proposed yet, however, anecdotally staff hears from residents often  asking about their ability to add a mother‐in‐law style apartment to their home, which is currently  restricted under code. She noted staff plans to have community input once the ordinance is further  developed.   Commissioner Johnson asked how the ordinance would be effectively enforced, and how the city  would differentiate between an ADU and any other home addition. Quarles noted that it was a good  question to keep in mind moving forward, and that the Commissioner was getting at some of the issues  with the existing code language, namely that it was difficult to currently enforce the “boarding room”  allowed for R‐1 homes. Campbell provided additional information on the current requirements for  building permits and rental licensing.     Commissioner Ruby asked how the additional structure is handled in terms of home value and taxable  value. Staff noted it was something they needed to do more research around, and that they would  contact the County Assessor to see if any market evidence could be found.   Pockl asked for a clarification on staffs’ comparisons in the memo and presentation to Minneapolis  and Apple Valley. Quarles affirmed that the two were meant to describe opposite ends of the scale  when it came to how restrictive an ADU ordinance was drafted, Minneapolis being one of the least  restrictive, and Apple Valley one of the most. Quarles noted that Planning Commission’ own  preference for an ordinance in Golden Valley would likely fall somewhere in between these two  extremes.  Commissioner Brookins noted his appreciation for the City ordinance comparisons. He noted that he  was initially interested and drawn to the ordinance adopted by Minnetonka. He asked that if the  Commission were to continue considering detached ADUs, that he would like to have an estimate for  the number of detached garages existing in the City today. He noted that he was in favor of internal  and attached ADUs, and that he would consider detached ADUs, perhaps with a conditional use  City of Golden Valley  Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm 10 requirement. He also highlighted parking and utilities as other areas where he would like to see more  information.   Commissioner Ruby asked if other cities regulate the appearance of the ADU. Quarles affirmed that  many cities do have a requirement that the ADU match the exterior of the principal structure, some  go into greater detail in terms of how the exterior treatment of the ADU must be handled to reduce  visual impact.  Commissioner Johnson stated that he was supportive of the use of a special permit for ADUs, and also  brought up the idea of a buffer or proximity restriction between ADUs. He noted that he was not as  concerned about a maximum size compared to a minimum, given that no matter the size of the unit,  it was still adding density by default. Quarles asked for clarification on the suggested buffer restriction.  Johnson noted he felt it did not need to be a hard prohibition on multiple units in a small area, but felt  that it could function as a quota or a way to control the rate of adoption through the city. Quarles  noted that while difficult to predict demand for ADUs, she noted that it was important to bear in mind  impacts on neighbors. Johnson agreed, and said there should be a balance between allowing ADUs  while protecting long‐term residents.   Commissioner Baker agreed with Johnson’s comments around aging in place. He noted that he felt  this was in part an equity issue and that staff and the Commission continued to keep this in mind when  considering regulations and what might be barrier to certain people. He appreciated Commissioner  Brookins earlier analysis on the Minnetonka code.   Chair Pockl closed the discussion, and ended the televised portion of the meeting.  7.Council Liaison Report Council Member Rosenquist provided a summary on the ongoing activities of City Council and other City‐wide activities including: Facilities Study and upcoming City Hall tours for residents, the newly established PEACE Commission, and upcoming budget discussions. 8.Other Business Campbell noted only that the Board of Zoning Appeals would be meeting on August 24th, 2021. The Board had one variance item for discussion and deliberation. 9.Adjournment MOTION by Commissioner Brookins to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 pm. ________________________________      Andy Johnson, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant  Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedApple Valley In R-1 zoning districtConditional Use Permit2 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main home YesMust connect to main house 40,000 SFCannot exceed 35% 300 SFShall be no larger than 40% of the main home's footprintAttached, Internal 155.382ADU occupancy limited to 3 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer 2Bloomington*In R-1 and RS-1 zoning districtsPrimary home must have 4 off-street parking spaces YesMust connect to main house 11,000 SF 300 SF960 SF or 33% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, Internal § 21.302.03ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer1 permitted and constructedBurnsvilleIn R-1 and R-1A zoning districts1 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main home YesMust connect to main house. If not on municipal lines, must meet private well and septic standards10,000 SF for attached1 acre for detached 300 SF960 SF or 33% of the footprint of the main homeAttached, Detached, Internal 10.7.52ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer; require park dedication and utility fees 0ChaskaIn Planned Unit Developments Yes768 SFDetached, above garage with alley access Ord. #708 10CrystalIn R-1 and R-2 zoning districts 1 additional for the ADU NoCan be connected to property or utility main 6,000 SF Shall not exceed 50% of the finished floor area of the primary homeAttached, Detached, InternalChapter V, Subsection 515.23, Subdivision 3 1 permittedEaganIn Estate and R-1 zoning districtsAnnual Registration2 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main home YesMust connect to main houseCannot exceed 20% 300 SF960 SF or 33% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, InternalSection 11.70, subdivision 32ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer1 constructed and 1 legalizedInver Grove HeightsIn the A, E-1, E-2, R-1A, R-1B, and R-1C zoning districts2 off-street for the ADU and 1 off-street for the main home YesMust share with main house1 acre for detached 250 SF 1,000 SFAttached, Detached, Internal 10.18.1ADU occupancy limited to 3 people 5 registeredLakevilleIn RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, and RS-4 zoning districts and Planned Unit Developments3 garage stalls for the ADU and main homeMust share with main houseAttached, Internal11.50.11.F, 11.51.11.F, 11.52.11.F, 11.53.11.FMust be accessed from inside the main home 2 permittedLong LakeIn the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districtsConditional Use Permit 2 for the ADU Yesx2 the minimum lot size required by the zoning district 900 SFCannot be rented to non-family members1 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedMinneapolisAs an accessory to a permitted or conditional single-family or two-family dwelling.0 for the ADU, 1 space each for other units YesConnect to main home or the street 300 SFInternal: 800 SF not to exceed the first floor of the main home.Attached: 800 SFDetached: 1,300 SF (incl. parking areas) or 16% of the lot area. Footprint not to exceed 676 SF or 10% of the lot area, not to exceed 1,000 SFAttached, Detached, Internal 537.11~120 permitted and builtMinnetonkaIn R-1 and R-2 zoning districtsConditional Use PermitDetermined on a case by case basis YesMust connect to main homeNo more than 35% of the gross living area of the home, including the ADU or 950 SF, whichever is smaller.Attached, InternalSection 300.16.3.d 30PlymouthWithin residential subdivisions in RSF-R, RSF-1, RSF-2, and PUD zoning districts,that have received preliminary plat approval on or after June 1, 2001 and that include 10 ormore single-family lots 2 off-street for the ADU YesDetached must connect to utility mainShall not exceed the gross floor area of the main home or 1,000 SF, whichever is lessAttached, Detached 21190.04Can only be constructed at the same time as the primary home, as part of a subdivision of 10 or more homes 0RichfieldIn R and R-1 zoning districts3 off-street spaces are required YesAttached and Internal may connect to home 300 SF800 SF or the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is lessAttached, Detached, Internal514.05 Subd. 8, 518.05 Subd. 8Detached units are only allowed as part of a garage. 2 existingRosevilleIn the LDR-1 zoning district1 additional off-street space for the ADU YesAttached and Internal may connect to home 300 SF650 SF or 75% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, Detached, Internal 11.011.12.B.1ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be one bedroom or fewer5, 2 of which were legalized; 1 in processingShoreviewIn RE and R-1 zoning districtsAccessory Apartment Permit3 off-street spaces are required YesMust share with main house 500 SFNo more than 30% of the building's total floor area nor greater than 800 SFAttached, Internal 207.01ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer St. PaulR1-R4, RT1, RT2, RM1, RM2Annual affadavit of owner-occupancyNo additional spaces if principal home meets minimum parking requirement YesMust connect to principal home 5,000 SF800 SF; if interior to the principal structure, the principal structure must be at least 1,000 SF and the ADU must not exceed 1/3 of the total floor areaAttached, Detached, InternalChapers 61, 63, 65, and 66 12 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedStillwaterIn TR, CTR, and RB zoning districtsIn CTR and RB: Special Use Permit4 off-street for the ADU and main house NoCan be connected to property or utility mainTR and RB: 10,000 SFCTR: 15,000 SFCTR: 500 SF, one story attached or 720 SF above a detached garageRB: 800 SFTR and CTR: Attached, Detached, InternalRB: Detached, above garage Sec. 31-50116 approved, but likely more that were permitted by right in RBWhite Bear LakeWhere single-family homes are permittedConditional Use PermitAnnual Certificate of Occupancy renewalDetermined on a case by case basis YesCan be connected to property or utility main200 SF for the first occupant plus 100 SF for each additional occupant880 SF or 40% of the habitable area of the main homeAttached, DetachedSection 1302.125Maximum of 4 occupants 10 permitted* Updated policy is currently under consideration as of February 20193 Minnetonka Zoning Code Sec. 300.16 Conditional Use permit Standards for Residential Districts, Subd. 3.d. d) Accessory apartments: 1) Accessory apartments shall be allowed for the following purposes: a. more efficient utilization of the existing single family housing stock in the city; b. enjoyment of the benefits of rental income, decreased housekeeping responsibilities or the companionship of tenants by persons residing in houses which are too large for their present needs; c. provision of housing which allows privacy and independence for older family members; d. preservation of property values and maintenance of the character of existing single family neighborhoods; and e. provision of housing for live-in employees, such as nannies. 2) For the purpose of this subdivision, the following definitions shall apply: a. “housekeeping unit” - all persons residing within a single family house whose relationship includes a substantial amount of social interaction including the sharing of housekeeping responsibilities or expenses or the taking of meals together; b. “living space” - the area within a house which is suitable for human habitation including suitable finished basement areas but excluding garages, services areas and unfinished portions of the building; c. “owner” - the person who holds fee title or is a bona fide purchaser under a contract for deed of the property; d. “unit of housing” - one or more rooms designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities separate from those of another unit of housing and intended for the exclusive use of a single housekeeping unit; and e. “temporary absence” - establishing residence outside of the twin cities metropolitan area for a period not to exceed 12 months but during which period the subject property continues to be the applicant's legal or principal residence. 3) no accessory apartment shall be created or used except in conformity with the following: a. to be created only on property zoned for single family detached dwellings and no more than one apartment to be created in any dwelling; b. structures in which an accessory apartment is created to be owner-occupied, with the owner residing in either unit on a continuous basis except for temporary absences throughout the period during which the permit is valid; c. adequate off-street parking to be provided for both units of housing with such parking to be in a garage, carport or on a paved area specifically intended for that purpose but not within a required turnaround; d. may be created by the conversion of living space within the house but not by conversion of garage space unless space is available for a two car garage on the lot without the need for a variance; e. an accessory apartment must be no more than 35 percent of the gross living area of the house or 950 square feet, whichever is smaller. The gross living area includes the accessory apartment. The city council may approve a larger area where the additional size would not substantially impact the surrounding neighborhood. f. exterior changes to the house must not substantially alter the single family character of the structure; g. no apartment to be created except in compliance with all applicable building, housing, electrical, plumbing, heating and related codes of the city; h. to be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the accessory unit will not have an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties and where there will not be a substantial alteration of the character of the neighborhood; and i. all other provisions of this ordinance relating to single family dwelling units to be met, unless specifically amended by this subdivision.   ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are a flexible, neighborhood-scale solution to regional housing needs. Cities can encourage ADUs as part of their overall housing strategy by adopting proven policies. POLICY BRIEF 22 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 What makes ADUs good for cities? ADUs provide affordable options in the private market: Most ADU rents are affordable to a household earning less than $56,000 annually.1 • ADUs represent gentle, or “hidden” density as a form of small-scale infill housing. • ADUs provide access for renters to established, well-connected neighborhoods. • ADUs are built by homeowners on existing lots, providing new housing without expensive land acquisition costs, and add value to the property, which can lead to increased property tax revenue for a city. • ADUs typically serve one- and two-person households, a growing demographic segment which comprises the majority of Twin Cities households.2 • ADUs support stable homeownership by serving lifecycle housing needs. Over time, rental income provided by an ADU can help homeowners pay their mortgages or save up. Homeowners may use their ADU to house family members who need care, or they may move into the ADU themselves to downsize. • ADUs are environmentally-friendly housing options because they are smaller and use less energy than the average home. They help reduce transportation- related environmental impacts when they are located near employment centers and established public transit routes.3 • ADUs support the local economy, as homeowners typically hire local construction and design firms to build them. • ADUs help create vibrant neighborhoods as new residents increase the customer base for nearby businesses and services. ADUs are often known as “carriage houses,” “in-law suites,” and “granny flats.” They are adjacent or attached to a primary home, and have their own entrance, kitchen, living area, and bathroom. ADUs can be located within a home, attached to a home, or as a detached structure in a backyard (sometimes above a garage). ADUs are a unique housing form created by individual homeowners and scattered throughout neighborhoods. What is an ADU? 1 Rent data from FHFund survey results. See also: Garcia, David. UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Dec. 2017. ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes. ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf 2 Metropolitan Council. Thrive MSP 2040 Housing Policy Plan. July 2015. p. 9 3 See Stephan, A., Crawford, R.H., 2016. The relationship between house size and life cycle energy demand: implications for energy efficiency regulations for buildings. Energy 116 (Part 1), 1158–1171. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.038 A 2014 study found that ADU residents in Portland were less likely than the average to own cars (State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2014. Accessory dwelling units in Portland, Oregon: evaluation and interpretation of a survey of ADU Why do we need ADUs as a housing option? ADUs can help reduce pressures on the regional housing market, including: • Increasing demand for more housing units: To meet the needs of anticipated workforce growth and other population trends, the seven-county Twin Cities region needs to add nearly 13,000 units of housing each year through 2040.4 ADUs engage private homeowners as a new set of partners addressing this housing need, without public subsidy. • Low supply of rental housing stock: Throughout the Twin Cities metro area, vacancy rates for studio and one-bedroom units are 2.1% and 2.3%, respectively— far below a healthy rate of 5% or more.5 Adding ADUs in existing neighborhoods helps to address this gap. • Cost pressures for renters: The greatest demand over the next 20 years will be for rental units priced below $1,875/month (in 2019 dollars), as ADUs typically are.6 • Smaller households: The type of new housing needed in the coming decades will be affected by changing demographic trends. Nearly half of the region’s projected household growth will be individuals living alone, and ADUs are typically designed for these smaller households.7 • Aging population: Four-fifths of household growth will be in older households headed by individuals aged 65 and older, many seeking options to downsize in their own neighborhoods; ADUs provide this option.8 Where can I find ADUs? Currently, an estimated 18 cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area have policies permitting ADUs and approximately 150 permitted ADUs exist in the region. However, ADUs have always existed in the Twin Cities. 33 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Eric & Chrissi Larsen inside their ADU Hidden Density Can you spot the modern, spacious ADU behind this home in Saint Paul? 4 Met Council Housing Policy Plan. p. 9 5 Marquette Advisors Apartment Trends, 1st Quarter 2018. 6 FHFund/Lisa Sturtevant & Associates, 2018, forthcoming 7 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 9 8 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 9 9 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 151: The region needs 9,550 new units of housing to meet the needs of households earning between 51-80% of the Area Median Income by 2030. Per Metropolitan Council 2017 estimates, there are approximately 721,035 single-family homes in the Twin Cities region. stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/detail.aspx?c=R11000 How much housing could ADUs provide? ADUs are a cost-effective way to meet a substantial portion of the Twin Cities region’s future housing need without public subsidy. If ADUs in the seven-county metro area became as common as they are in Portland, Oregon (representing about 1.5% of single-family homes), we could create 11,000 new housing units, potentially meeting most of the region’s need for new housing for households who earn $40,000-50,000 per year.9 11,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS How can local policies support ADU development? The evidence is clear: local government policies and practices that reduce regulatory and cost burdens make a critical difference in whether ADUs can reach their full potential for communities. • I n Austin, Texas, allowing larger ADUs (up to 1,100 square feet) and reducing other requirements10 paved the way for permit requests to rise nearly tenfold. • In Portland, Oregon, annual ADU permit volume increased from just 24 (in 2009) to 615 (in 2016) when it waived development fees for ADUs, saving homeowners $8,000-12,000 per unit.11 • In Los Angeles, California, ADU permits jumped from 80-90 per year to 1,980 in 2017, after California’s state legislature required cities to adopt ADU policies.12 44 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Flexible for Households Multigenerational Fue Lee’s parents live in the first-floor ADU attached to the family’s house in North Minneapolis. Fue and his adult siblings live in the main home. The Lees’ home and its neighbor to the north were developed by the City of Lakes Community Land Trust as the first two homes to be built with an ADU in Minneapolis. Encouraging ADUs: Best Practices for Cities REMOVE REGULATORY BARRIERS • Allow different types of ADUs as an accessory to all single-family or small multifamily homes, permitted by right rather than conditionally • Designate ADU experts within departments to facilitate a clear permitting process • Remove or reduce parking minimums • Remove owner-occupancy restrictions • Make design standards more flexible PROMOTE ADUs AND INCREASE ACCESS TO INFORMATION • Create a dedicated webpage and resource materials for ADU development • Host quarterly informational workshops about ADUs • Sponsor, promote, and participate in ADU tours LOWER COSTS AND INCREASE ACCESS TO CAPITAL • Offer homeowners waivers, discounts, tiered pricing, and payment plans for fees • Develop an ADU loan program for homeowners • Work with developers to incentivize building ADUs in new construction Illuminating solutions. Sparking change. FHFUND.ORG 10 Austin Development Services Department. Accessory Dwelling Units. ww.austintexas.gov/page/adu 11 City of Portland, Oregon. City Council Extends the SDC Waiver for ADUs, with Conditions. June 27, 2018. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/689356 12 Garcia, David. UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Dec. 2017. ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes. ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf APPENDIX BEST PRACTICES FROM PEER CITIES Allow ADUs to be permitted by right for all single-family and two- family developments. In California, allowing ADUs to be processed ministerially (i.e. administratively/by right) has had a major impact, with a rapid rise in ADU permit applications after the enactment of SB 1069 and AB 2299 in January 2017.13 The City of Oakland had a sevenfold increase, from 33 permit applications in 2015 to 247 in 2017. The City of Los Angeles had a nearly 25-fold increase in applications, from 80 in 2016 to 1,980 in 2017. Remove or reduce parking minimums. In Oregon, a survey conducted by the Department of Environmental Quality found that ADUs had a negligible impact on parking congestion.14 ADU residents had a below-average vehicle ownership rate (less than one per household), and the dispersed nature of ADU development meant any additional on-street parking impact was also dispersed throughout the city. Remove owner-occupancy and household size restrictions. Most peer cities nationally and three Minnesota cities (Crystal, Stillwater, and Northfield15) do not have owner- occupancy requirements. These requirements limit the use of the property over time and may be a disincentive to homeowners considering ADU development or limit their financing options. Make design standards more flexible. After adjusting its regulations in 2015 to allow larger floor areas, Austin, Texas saw a marked increase in ADU development, from 250 issued permits from 1994 to 2015 to more than 600 in the three years since the change.16 Designate ADU experts in departments to facilitate a clear permitting process. To clear its backlog of ADU applications, San Francisco is working with multiple city departments to define a checklist of consistent guidelines to help homeowners successfully navigate city processes.17 Offer waivers, discounts, tiered pricing, and payment plans for fees. WAIVER FOR AFFORDABILITY: The City of Santa Cruz, California waives permit fees on a sliding scale in exchange for a commitment to renting an ADU to a low-income household. Approximately 39 households have used this waiver since 2016.18 TIERED PRICING: Most cities already offer tiered pricing in some form, such as for building permits. Offering tiered pricing for other fees, such as sewer access charges, can help reduce what would otherwise be a larger fixed cost for homeowners wishing to build an ADU. Develop an ADU loan program. The County of Santa Cruz in California,19 the City of Portland, Oregon,20 and the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative (WDRC) in Colorado21 are developing low- or no-interest loan programs for ADU development. Each program has an affordability focus, either creating affordable rental units or building wealth and stability for lower-income homeowners. Santa Cruz County also has a specialized My House, My Home ADU loan program to help low-income senior homeowners build ADUs so that they can afford to age in place.19 Work with developers to incentivize building ADUs in new construction. The City of Lakes Community Land Trust (CLCLT) builds and sells multigenerational-living homes with attached ADUs in Minneapolis. The homes are designed for flexibility, with ADUs at the back of the first floor that can open to the inside of the main home or can be accessed through a separate entrance, allowing the home to meet changing housing needs over multiple generations. REMOVE REGULATORY BARRIERS LOWER COSTS AND INCREASE ACCESS TO CAPITAL 55 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Encouraging ADUs in Your City Continued on next page FEBRUARY 2019 ©Family Housing Fund 13 Garcia, David. 14 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 15 Northfield is noted here but is not counted as part of the 18 cities that have an ADU policy as it is outside the Twin Cities metro area. 16 City of Austin. Open Data. data.austintexas.gov 17 Sabatini, Joshua. “Just 23 in-Law Units Built after Two Years as SF Seeks to Iron out Approval Process.” The San Francisco Examiner. 25 Feb. 2018. www.sfexaminer.com/just-23-law-units-built-two-years-sf-seeks-iron-approval-process 18 City of Santa Cruz 2016 Accessory Dwelling Units Fee Waiver Information and Application www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=53802 19 Santa Cruz County. Accessory Dwelling Units. Plan Your Financing. www.sccoplanning.com/ADU/Planyourfinancing.aspx 20 Portland Housing Bureau. Accessory Dwelling Unit Pilot Loan Program. www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/661992 [PDF Slides] 21 Martinez-Stone, Renee. 28 June 2018. 22 Peterson, Kol. 2018. Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to ADU Development. Accessory Dwelling Strategies, LLC. p. 227-228 23 Eastman, Janet. 29 Aug. 2017. “Get inside 24 Rentable Granny Flats: Portland’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Tour (Photos).” OregonLive.com. www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2017/08/granny_flat_adu_tour_pdx_kol_p.html. 24 Lee, Chris. 25 Apr. 2018. “Minneapolis & Saint Paul Home Tour Features Homes and Neighborhood Pride.” Midwest Home. midwesthome.com/124463-2 APPENDIX BEST PRACTICES FROM PEER CITIES …continued Create a dedicated webpage and host informational workshops on ADU development. City of Santa Cruz, California has become a national model by appointing dedicated staff to the development of its ADU program, creating a guide for homeowners, sharing prototypes of architectural plans, hosting workshops, and creating a webpage with ADU information.22 Sponsor, promote, and participate in ADU tours. The city of Portland boasts an annual ADU tour, run in partnership between advocates and the City. It has been a successful beginning point for many ADU homeowners, who embarked on their developments after attending the tour.23 Locally, a few ADUs already have been popular stops on the Minneapolis & Saint Paul Home Tour.24 PROMOTE ADUs AND INCREASE ACCESS TO INFORMATION Illuminating solutions. Sparking change. FHFUND.ORG 310 4th Ave South Suite 9000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 MAIN 612.375.9644