Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-2026 PC PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 8, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting 04 -08 -26 PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 26 -012 –3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard –Variance Jake Reilly, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 26 -010 –Ordinance Amendments To Chapter 13 -Zoning Code Section 1380 TCAAP Redevelopment Code For Multi -Use Trail Width And Streetlight Spacing Jake Reilly, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 26 -008 –3761 Lexington Avenue –Site Plan Review And Conditional Use Permit Jake Reilly, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 26 -011 –City Of Arden Hills –Ordinance Amendments To Chapter 13 –Zoning Code Section 1325 Adding Language For Accessory Dwelling Units Jake Reilly, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Joshua Collins (2027) Commissioners: Brad Bjorklund (2025) Steve Erler (2026) Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026) Patrick Burlingame (2027) Nancy Jacobson (2027) Jessica Birken (2027) Katie Stromberg - Alternate (2026) SJ Julius -Alternate (2027) Council Liaison: Kurt Weber Planning Commission June 3, 2026 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -Meetings Some Commissioners may be participating in this meeting by interactive technology/remotely. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 3.D. Documents: 4. 4.A. 4.B. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESApril 8, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting04-08 -26 PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 26 -012 –3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard –Variance Jake Reilly, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 26 -010 –Ordinance Amendments To Chapter 13 -Zoning Code Section 1380 TCAAP Redevelopment Code For Multi -Use Trail Width And Streetlight Spacing Jake Reilly, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 26 -008 –3761 Lexington Avenue –Site Plan Review And Conditional Use Permit Jake Reilly, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 26 -011 –City Of Arden Hills –Ordinance Amendments To Chapter 13 –Zoning Code Section 1325 Adding Language For Accessory Dwelling Units Jake Reilly, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Joshua Collins (2027)Commissioners:Brad Bjorklund (2025)Steve Erler (2026)Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026)Patrick Burlingame (2027)Nancy Jacobson (2027)Jessica Birken (2027)Katie Stromberg -Alternate (2026)SJ Julius -Alternate (2027)Council Liaison:Kurt Weber Planning Commission June 3, 2026 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting,strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsSome Commissioners may be participating in this meeting by interactive technology/remotely.AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 3.D. Documents: 4. 4.A. 4.B. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESApril 8, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting04-08 -26 PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 26 -012 –3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard –VarianceJake Reilly, Community Development DirectorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDFPlanning Case 26 -010 –Ordinance Amendments To Chapter 13 -Zoning Code Section 1380 TCAAP Redevelopment Code For Multi -Use Trail Width And Streetlight SpacingJake Reilly, Community Development DirectorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFPlanning Case 26 -008 –3761 Lexington Avenue –Site Plan Review And Conditional Use Permit Jake Reilly, Community Development DirectorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDFPlanning Case 26 -011 –City Of Arden Hills –Ordinance Amendments To Chapter 13 –Zoning Code Section 1325 Adding Language For Accessory Dwelling UnitsJake Reilly, Community Development DirectorMEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Joshua Collins (2027)Commissioners:Brad Bjorklund (2025)Steve Erler (2026)Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026)Patrick Burlingame (2027)Nancy Jacobson (2027)Jessica Birken (2027)Katie Stromberg -Alternate (2026)SJ Julius -Alternate (2027)Council Liaison:Kurt Weber Planning Commission June 3, 2026 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting,strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsSome Commissioners may be participating in this meeting by interactive technology/remotely.AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Documents:3.B.Documents:3.C.Documents:3.D.Documents: 4. 4.A. 4.B. 5. Approved: June 3, 2026 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2026 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Collins called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Joshua Collins, Commissioners Jessica Birken, Brad Bjorklund, Patrick Burlingame, Stephen Erler, Nancy Jacobson and Ben Lindau. Absent: None. Also present were: Community Development Director Jacob Reilly and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – APRIL 8, 2026 Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to approve the April 8, 2026, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 4, 2026 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chair Collins noted there was a minor change to the minutes on Page 8. Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund, to approve the February 4, 2026, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as amended on Page 8. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Community Development Director Reilly requested the Commission take a five minute recess to allow staff to address a technology issue. Commissioner Burlingame moved, seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund, to recess the Planning Commission meeting at 6:35 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Commissioner Burlingame moved, seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund, to reconvene the Planning Commission meeting at 6:48 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 8, 2026 2 PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 26-006 – City of Arden Hills – Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 13 - Zoning Code Adding Section 1320.16 Requirements for Affordable Housing – Public Hearing Community Development Director Reilly stated in the fall of 2025, the City Council requested staff begin developing an affordable housing policy for new residential developments in the City of Arden Hills. Staff prepared several presentations about the history of and existing market conditions related to construction, cost, and affordability of new housing in the nation, state of Minnesota, the Twin Cities metropolitan region, Ramsey County and Arden Hills. At the October 2025 work sessions, the City Council received information about affordable housing in Arden Hills and the relation to the housing market nationwide. Two memos, summarized below, were produced detailing the root causes of the nationwide housing crisis, the effect specific to Arden Hills and potential solutions. Community Development Director Reilly reported Arden Hills faces a significant housing affordability challenge across all income levels and age groups. About 21% of all households are cost-burdened (spending more than 30% of income on housing), rising to 52% among renters. This includes more than a quarter of households making between 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 80% AMI. In real dollars that is a four- person household with an annual income between $79,440 and $104,200. The median home sale price is $465,000 with only a three-month supply on the market — well below the five-to-six months considered healthy. Average rents exceed $1,800/month. Affordability pressures extend beyond lower-income residents: over a third of older households (65+) are now cost-burdened nationally, and many Arden Hills seniors face a "lifecycle housing mismatch" with few options between large single- family homes and expensive senior care facilities. Community Development Director Reilly explained the crisis is both national and local. Home prices have risen 60% nationwide since 2019, and the U.S. homeownership rate fell in 2024 for the first time in eight years — most sharply among households under 35. Two structural forces drive the shortage: decades of underbuilding "missing middle" housing (small-scale homes and small multi-family buildings), and incomes that have not kept pace with construction costs. New tariffs are expected to add roughly $10,900 per new home, and economic uncertainty is suppressing both builder confidence and buyer demand. Locally, Arden Hills is largely built out, institutional land holdings limit developable areas, and limited public transit adds to residents' true cost of living. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the definitions for Affordable Housing, Attainable Housing, Workforce Housing, Subsidized Housing and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing, provided further comment on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and offered the following Findings of Fact for the Planning Commission: • The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language for Chapter 13 – Zoning Code by adding Section 1320.16 . • The proposed ordinance is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan policies to: o Encourage the incorporation of affordable and life-cycle housing into new development and redevelopment where feasible. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 8, 2026 3 o Identify programs, policies, and strategies that encourage aging in community for senior citizens. • The health, safety, and economic welfare of present and future residents of Arden Hills depends on the availability of housing choices affordable to people and families at various income levels, including those earning less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). • Stable, safe, and affordable housing provides measurable health and economic benefits for individuals, families, and the community as a whole. • There is a demonstrated need to encourage the development of affordable housing for Arden Hills’ workforce and families. • New residential development can accommodate existing demand for affordable housing for service workers, teachers, public safety personnel, and other essential community members. • The preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) is critical as market pressures increase rents and threaten the displacement of existing affordable units. • Economic integration of affordable housing within market-rate developments creates diverse, stable neighborhoods and prevents the concentration of poverty and the concentration of wealth. • Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Community Development Director Reilly stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 26-006 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance 2026-0XX to Chapter 13 in Section 1320.16 – Inclusionary Housing of the Arden Hills City Code to add language to address an identified need for affordable housing production within the City as discussed in the April 8, 2026 Report to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Collins requested staff review the questions and answers that were provided by staff prior to this meeting. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the questions and answers he received prior to the meeting noting he has not received any public comments and indicated this ordinance would not cover Rice Creek Commons. He discussed the City’s future land use map noting where new housing developments could occur. He commented on how the ordinance was meant to be a carrot and a stick when it comes to working with developers in order to develop affordable housing units in the future. Commissioner Bjorklund asked who provided the Twin Cities affordable housing summary. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 8, 2026 4 Commissioner Lindau explained he asked staff to pass this information along to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bjorklund thanked staff for all of their work on this item. Commissioner Erler questioned if this ordinance could be modified through a PUD like any other ordinance. Community Development Director Reilly stated this would be the case. Commissioner Birken inquired if this ordinance would apply to any multi-family housing project over 20 units. Community Development Director Reilly commented this ordinance would apply to any housing proposal for any type of housing that was 20 units or more. Commissioner Birken asked where in the City this ordinance would apply. Community Development Director Reilly stated the mauve area on the future land use map or the area surrounding Lexington Avenue would apply. Commissioner Bjorklund questioned if housing was allowed on industrial sites. Community Development Director Reilly explained comprehensive plan and zoning code amendments would be required to allow for residential uses in an industrial use district. Chair Collins asked why staff settled on a project that had 20 housing units as the standard to include affordable housing units. Community Development Director Reilly reported this was the standard for other communities that have an inclusionary housing policy. Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Kristine Polzer, 1870 Indian Place, stated ADUs were unknown to most people. She requested the city not let the lack of facts deter the city from learning more and giving serious thought to this topic. She asked that the Commission be wise with its recommendation when it comes to ADUs and to be wide in its planning in order to provide options for residents. She urged the city to consider its past when looking towards the future. She believed the city was fortunate to have Mr. Reilly’s experience in addressing this topic. She discussed how ADUs are allowing seniors to age in place while creating multi-generational housing. She spoke to how difficult it was for younger generations to get into a house at this time and stated ADs would be a positive step for the City. Mary Henry, 3521 Ridgewood Court, thanked staff for the detailed staff report. She commented on how difficult it would be for those living in poverty to live in Arden Hills. She believed 60% AMI was more reasonable for affordable housing than 80% AMI. She stated at 60% AMI housing could be provided for retail workers and assembly line workers. She encouraged the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 8, 2026 5 Planning Commission and City Council to have greater vision on who should be served in the affordable housing units in order to make living in Arden Hills achievable for all. Lynn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, stated the city has a significant affordable housing challenge across all income levels and age groups, noting 52% of renters were cost burdened. She reported Ramsey County was the most cost burdened county in the metro area. She supported allowing for more units per lot and allowing for ADUs on residential lots. She recommended minimum parking requirements not be eliminated as she did not want to see on street overnight parking. She stated overall she supported the inclusionary housing policy and encouraged the City to consider a land trust and housing trust fund. She discussed how federal funding was available to assist with deeply affordable housing units and encouraged the City to strive for this. She agreed the 80% AMI was useless and recommended the City pursue affordable housing that was at 60% AMI or less. David Rogge, 1366 Arden View Drive, stated mortgage interest rates have a great impact when it comes to affordable housing units. He encouraged the City to have a comprehensive approach when it comes to affordable housing in order to have a meaningful impact on the community. He suggested land trusts be considered and discussed how important it was for there to be State or City-wide action. He recommended the City look for ways to speed up the construction process and to limit fees in order to assist in creating new housing units that were more affordable. There being no additional comment Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Chair Collins stated he would like to suspend Roberts Rules of Order to allow for this item to be discussed in a worksession setting. Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Burlingame seconded a motion to recess the Planning Commission meeting to a worksession meeting at 7:40 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Burlingame seconded a motion to reconvene the Planning Commission in a worksession format at 7:46 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Vice Chair Lindau summarized the information that he provided to the Planning Commission. He discussed how other cities were addressing this topic. He explained if the City wants to address affordability the City has to put in place a legal framework along with a nexus between market rate developments and affordable housing requirements. He requested staff provide the Commission with further information on LAHA dollars. Community Development Director Reilly reported LAHA stands for Local Affordable Housing Aid and was an allocation from the State to a municipality in part to make up for lack of tax capacity and support affordable housing production. He explained the LAHA funds will be deposited in the City’s coffers and must be used for affordable housing. He stated at the time this program was created, Arden Hills did not qualify because the City did not have over 10,000 residents. It was his hope the City’s population could be reevaluated in order to grant the City access to this program. Chair Collins explained the inclusionary housing policy that was presented to the Planning Commission was similar to the policy that was being followed by Shoreview. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 8, 2026 6 Community Development Director Reilly provided further insight on the proposed inclusionary housing policy noting Edina has one of the most successful ordinances in the State. Commissioner Birken asked why the Council wanted to strike the lowest affordable housing level. Commissioner Erler stated it was his understanding the Council wanted a middle of the road policy. Commissioner Lindau indicated the Council also did not want to price themselves out of the market. He questioned if the Council was aware of the fact Shoreview was allowing for lower AMI housing and these units were not being priced out. Commissioner Jacobson questioned if developers would not embrace the City’s proposed chart. Commissioner Birken commented Bloomington was not having any issues and they were at 9% across all categories. She understood that Bloomington was a larger community that had a land trust fund and LAHA dollars available. She asked what options were available to Arden Hills, given the size of this community was so much smaller. Commissioner Bjorklund stated he understood the City could use the EDA to create TIF districts, invest earnings from affordable housing trust funds, sell real property, accept cash donations for affordable housing, and coordinate with the Met Council when it comes to LAHA funding. It was his hope the City’s EDA would be more functional going forward. Chair Collins supported the City adopting this inclusionary housing policy in order for the City to be more intentional when it comes to affordable housing. He wanted to see Arden Hills becoming more hospitable when it comes to new development. He questioned if the City had a challenge with its leadership culture or language within City Code. Commissioner Birken explained she was hoping Arden Hills would be open for business and development. She suggested higher density be considered along the Lexington Avenue corridor and that the City reconsider the approval process. She indicated she could support modifying the City’s parking requirements as well. She wanted to see the City having an increased housing supply because this would benefit the entire community. Commissioner Burlingame indicated he spoke with a number of realtors in the area. He understood the community was facing a housing crisis. He recognized that the proposed inclusionary housing policy would only apply to larger housing projects. He supported the City looking at what other tools were available to spur affordable housing. He encouraged the City Council to take action in order to have more housing brought into the community rather than unintentionally limiting development. Chair Collins commented on how the thought that more inventory would lead to lower housing prices was no longer the case because demand far outweighs what the market can provide. Commissioner Jacobson stated the perception is that Arden Hills cannot develop, given what has occurred on TCAAP over the past two decades. She understood there was a great need for more housing and agreed this was a very complicated topic. She suggested the affordability ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 8, 2026 7 levels be reconsidered within the chart in order to provide more flexibility for future tenants. She liked the idea of having flexible units for affordability with guaranteed rents. Commissioner Burlingame indicated this would require zoning code adjustments when it comes to density and setbacks. Chair Collins stated the City was revising the zoning code at this time and these topics were being considered. Commissioner Erler commented he believed the inclusionary housing policy was the first step. He understood a future step was finding funding. He supported the City getting the first step in place. Chair Collins reviewed the rental rates for 80% AMI. He indicated he would rather see the City pursuing affordable housing that goes deeper and down to 30% AMI. Commissioner Erler stated he could support the City changing the table with the lower AMI rates, noting the financing would have to be figured out in the future. Councilmember Weber requested staff provide the Commission with an overview on Section 8.1 and TIF. Community Development Director Reilly discussed the regulatory incentives that were presented in Section 8.1. He reported he added a second option for a density bonus at 50% given how the PUD functions at Rounds Lake Road and North Heights Church. He stated the 80% language could be revised if he was provided direction from the Planning Commission and City Council. He provided further comment on how the cost for constructing a home has increased since the pandemic. Staff noted it was potentially better for the City to have a policy in place than no policy at all because revisions could be made. Further discussion ensued regarding how Shoreview and Bloomington manage their inclusionary housing policy. The consensus of the Commission was to recommend the chart be amended to more closely reflect the Shoreview numbers with the AMI changed on the chart from 80% to 60%, with the City supporting high level density bonuses. Councilmember Weber commented on the previous housing projects that came to the City Council at Lexington Avenue. He indicated the developer believed they needed significant additional density with a baseline rent at 80% AMI. He stated the developer was asking for increased density just to construct market rate units. Chair Collins understood this to be the case but noted there were single parents that needed rental rates lower than 80% AMI. Community Development Director Reilly provided the Commission with a summary on TIF Districts and tax increment financing. Commissioner Bjorklund spoke again to the importance of getting the EDA up and running in the City of Arden Hills. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 8, 2026 8 Commissioner Birken stated it would take time for the City to develop a housing trust fund. Commissioner Lindau spoke to the chart that was followed by Shoreview and stated this may be a good starting point for Arden Hills because this community had a similar housing market. Commissioner Erler supported the 30% AMI remaining in the chart noting the City would need additional financial tools in place in order to provide 30% AMI housing units. Commissioner Birken stated the City does not have money for any of these types of projects at this time, but that doesn’t mean the City shouldn’t be pursuing additional affordable housing units. Councilmember Weber reported there was a lot of tax exempt land in Arden Hills that could be built on in order to bring new housing to the community. Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the cities in the metro area that have a 30% AMI clause within their inclusionary housing policy. Chair Collins appreciated how there was room for creativity for the thresholds and percentages of AMI within future housing projects. Commissioner Burlingame supported the City following the numbers from Shoreview. Commissioner Erler commented the values could be changed over time if the numbers were not working for Arden Hills. He discussed how the percentages and thresholds were a statement of value for the City. Commissioner Lindau recommended the City align its numbers with Shoreview. Commissioner Erler suggested the numbers for the chart be as follows: 80% AMI – 10% of units 60% AMI – 7.5% of units 50% AMI – 5% of units 30% AMI – 5% of units The Commission supported this proposal. Further discussion ensued regarding the density bonuses. Chair Collins suggested the density bonuses remain as is given the research that was conducted by staff. The Commission supported this recommendation. Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to recess the worksession meeting and reconvene the Planning Commission meeting at 9:44 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 8, 2026 9 Commissioner Birken moved and Commissioner Burlingame seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-006 for Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance 2026-0XX to Chapter 13 in Section 1320.16 – Inclusionary Housing of the Arden Hills City Code to add language to address an identified need for affordable housing production within the City as discussed in the April 8, 2026 Report to the Planning Commission with the amendments as discussed. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Vice Chair Community Development Director Reilly requested the Planning Commission elect a Vice Chair for 2026. Commissioner Erler moved and Chair Collins seconded a motion to elect Ben Lindau as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2026. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Weber provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He explained the Council passed a moratorium on detention facilities in the City, approved the sign standard adjustments for the fire station and approved the site plan review and variances for Scale Model Supply. He reported the Norwegian Foot March would be held on Saturday, April 18 at the Red Bull facility. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Bjorklund supported the City having a simple definition in place for ADU’s. He indicated he would also like to see the Commission doing more when it comes to make recommendations to the City Council when it comes to housing. Commissioner Erler understood the inclusionary housing policy was the first step for the City and he was proud the City was moving in this direction. ADJOURN Commissioner Burlingame moved, seconded by Commissioner Erler, to adjourn the April 8, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:56 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 of 10 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 2026 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #26-012 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Mill City Design Build Property Location: 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard Request: Variance Requested Action Mill City Design Build (“The Applicant”), on behalf of the property owners, has requested a variance from the floor area ratio (FAR) requirement in the R-2 Zoning District to build a 384 square foot porch addition to the existing principal dwelling at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard (“Subject Property”). To construct the proposed porch, the Applicant is requesting a FAR of 0.336. City code establishes a maximum FAR of 0.3. Background 1. Existing Site Conditions 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, the Subject Property, is zoned R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. It is designated Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Subject Property is the site of a single-family dwelling. Surrounding parcels to the north, south, and west are also zoned R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District and designated Low Density Residential in the Future Land Use Plan. Section 1320.06, District Requirements Chart establishes a maximum permitted FAR of 0.3 in the R-2 Zoning District. The Subject Property lot area is 9,215 square feet as measured from the front and side property lines to the ordinary high water level. Minnesota State Statute 6120.3300 requires only land above the ordinary high water level can be used to meet lot area standards. The maximum gross floor area of the principal dwelling on the lot is 2,765 square feet, for a maximum FAR of 0.3. The existing principal dwelling is 2,718 square feet in area. The Subject Property was originally developed in 1913 with an addition constructed in 1987. The detached garage on the property was reconstructed in 2004. The detached garage required a variance from the front yard setback, the side yard setback for accessory structures, and the Page 2 of 10 requirement that no accessory structure shall be nearer the front lot line than what is the required front setback. The City Council approved the variance requests in Planning Case 03-22. The Subject Property is a riparian lot with frontage on Lake Johanna, which is defined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a General Development Lake. The property is subject to the Shoreland Regulations in the City’s Zoning Code. 2. Site Data 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling Zoning: R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District Lot Size: 0.21 acres/9,215 square feet 3. Proposed Use The Applicant is proposing to construct a new 16-by-24-foot (384 square foot) porch addition to the existing 2,718 square foot principal dwelling for a total proposed gross floor area of 3,102 square feet or 0.336 FAR. This is 338 square feet greater than the maximum. A variance of 0.036 from the 0.3 FAR standard is required to construct the proposed porch. The proposed addition is a 16-by-24-foot covered screen porch to be located beneath an existing second-story deck area. The existing deck is proposed to be expanded as part of the project. The porch would be accessible from the existing walk-out basement and have a finished ceiling, lighting, screened-in walls and a concrete block foundation. In the narrative, the Applicant describes this area of the lot as unusable during inclement weather. The project would therefore create useful space that is designed to be aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the architectural character of the home. The proposed addition is located directly behind the dwelling and on the basement level, meaning it will not impede views or negatively impact the privacy of surrounding neighbors. It is noted that due to the elevation of the lot, surrounding topography, and proposed architectural design, the addition will not materially impact shoreline views or the reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properties. The proposed project complies with all other applicable city code requirements for the R-2 Zoning District. Page 3 of 10 Proposed Building Site 4. Approvals The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether a variance request for a floor area ratio of 0.336 should be approved. The evaluation of the proposal must be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320, the General Regulations in Section 1325, the Shoreland Regulations in Section 1330, and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions – Existing Nonconforming The Subject Property has a lot area of 9,215 square feet as measured to the ordinary high water level. Section 1320 – District Provisions of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet per single-family dwelling unit. The existing lot area is nonconforming and will not change with the proposed variance. Structure Setbacks – Meets Requirements In the R-2 District, the minimum front and rear setback requirements are 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively. The minimum side yard setback in the R-2 District is 5 feet and 15 feet combined. The existing front and rear setbacks are 69.2 feet and 69.1 feet, respectively. The side yard setbacks for the existing dwelling are 9.61 feet and 5.66 feet, for a combined total of 15.27 feet. The proposed addition would not impact the front yard setback or either side yard setback. The submitted site plan shows 52.7 feet as the proposed rear yard setback for the addition. Table 1 provides the minimum district requirements for the R-2 District and analysis of setbacks for the proposed addition: Table 1 R-2 District Setback Requirements Page 4 of 10 R-2 District Requirements Existing Proposed Addition Review of Proposed Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet 69.2 feet No change Meets Requirements Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 69.1 feet 52.7 feet Change, Meets Requirements Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet (min)/15 feet (total) 9.61 and 5.66 feet/15.27 feet No change Meets Requirements Landscaped Area Coverage – Meets Requirements In the R-2 District, the minimum landscaped area required is 65 percent of the property or 5,989.75 square feet of the Subject Property. The Applicant is proposing a landscaped area of 68.35 percent or 6,298 square feet. The minimum requirement is met. Structure Coverage – At Maximum Permitted The R-2 District allows for a maximum structure coverage of 25 percent or 2.304 square feet. The Applicant is proposing a structure coverage of 25 percent or 2304 square feet, which is the maximum square footage allowed. No additional structure coverage will be permitted on the property without City approval. Floor Area Ratio – Variance Requested The R-2 District allows for a maximum FAR of 0.3. Floor area ratio is obtained by dividing the sum of a building's floor area by the amount of lot area. Floor area is the sum of the horizontal area of all floors of a building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls, or from the centerline of walls separating two buildings. Floor area excludes decks, garages, covered front porches, and spaces that do not meet the minimum ceiling height per Minnesota State Building Code requirements. The total amount of floor area permitted for the 9,215 square foot lot is 2,764.5 square feet. The Applicant is proposing to add 384 square feet of floor area with the described porch addition, which would exceed the maximum permitted floor area by 337.5 square feet and bring the total gross floor area to 3,102 square feet. The Applicant requests a variance of 0.036 to construct the proposed addition for a total FAR of 0.336. 2. Shoreland Regulation – Section 1330 The Subject Property is a riparian lot on Lake Johanna’s shoreline and is subject to the Shoreland Regulations for a lot on a general development water. Table 2 shows the minimum district requirements for the Shoreland District with a preliminary analysis for the proposed deck: Table 2 Shoreland Regulations General Provisions General Development Waters (minimum requirements) Existing Proposed Lot Area (Riparian Lot) (square feet) 14,000 9,215 square feet No change, nonconforming Page 5 of 10 Minimum Water Frontage and Width at Building Line (feet) 75 feet 50 feet No change, nonconforming Structure Minimum Setback from Ordinary High Water Level (feet)* 50 feet 68.7 feet 52.7 feet, conforming Structure Minimum Setbacks from Streets and Highways (feet) 40 feet 69.2 feet No change, conforming Maximum Lot Area Covered by Impervious Surface (%) 35 % 29.16 % 31.65 %, conforming *Additional evaluation below The Subject Property is nonconforming with the lot area and minimum lot width at the building line requirements and the proposal does not change these conditions. The Subject Property is compliant with current setback requirements for riparian lots. The addition is subject to additional setback requirements relative to the adjacent properties. Elevation of Lowest Floor – Meets Requirements The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) confirmed that the proposed addition location is outside of the current RCWD regulatory floodplain elevation and the ordinary high water level is 878 feet. The proposed porch addition would have an elevation of 894 feet, which is 16 feet above the ordinary high water level. Adjacent Lots – Meets Requirements Section 1330 Subdivision 4 Adjacent Lots establishes additional setback requirements for new dwelling units and additions to existing dwelling units on riparian lots where the adjacent lots have existing dwellings that exceed the minimum setback from ordinary high water level: a. The proposed shall be setback at least the average of the setback(s) for the adjacent dwellings minus 10 feet. b. In no case shall the addition be within the minimum setback from OHWL or nearer to the OHWL than the nearest adjacent structure. The existing dwelling setbacks for the two properties adjacent to the Subject Property are approximately 50.9 feet and 64 feet. The nearest adjacent structure has a 50.9-foot setback from the OHWL. The minimum setback permitted on the Subject Property is 50.9 feet. The proposed setback for the porch addition is 52.7 feet, which is greater than 50.9 feet and compliant with the setback requirement. Shoreland Mitigation Plan – Plan Submitted As part of the Shoreland Regulations, a shoreland mitigation plan must be submitted for residential development that requires land use approval such as a variance. The Property Owner proposes a shoreland mitigation plan which includes incorporating architectural mass mitigation through the use of natural wood materials and earth-tone exterior finishes and vegetation restoration to improve stormwater infiltration, reduce runoff toward the lake, stabilize soils, and support erosion control (Attachment F). Page 6 of 10 3. Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base decisions on the facts presented and apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel the decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicant requests a floor area ratio variance to construct a porch addition on the property located at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The Planning Commission must determine whether there are “practical difficulties” with complying with the zoning regulations or the variance to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three-factor test for practical difficulties (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, the city should not grant the variance. Further, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant proposes to construct a porch addition to the back of a single-family dwelling on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District and is designated for Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed use of the Subject Property and the variance request comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. “Practical Difficulties” is a legal standard that must be applied when considering variance applications. The three-factor test applies to all variance requests, and all three factors below must be satisfied: a. Reasonableness. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant proposes to construct a porch addition on an existing residential dwelling in a residential zoning district. A porch is a typical and reasonable addition in a residential Page 7 of 10 district and is consistent with a single-family dwelling use. The proposed porch addition is reasonable and would not be permitted on this property due to the FAR requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. As shown in the submitted survey, the lot has a slope/significant rear yard area and the applicant states these topographical conditions make this space unusable during inclement weather or intense sun. Given the physical characteristics of the property, the proposed covered porch will allow for functional use of this space. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed porch would be constructed to the rear of the existing dwelling and adjoin to the basement walkout level of the dwelling. The location and elevation of the addition on the Subject Property will not alter the essential character of the residential neighborhood. Additionally, the scale and design of the porch will incorporate it into the existing dwelling so as to not detract from Lake Johanna waterfront views of the riparian lot. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character if granted. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official reviewed the plans and provided no comments. A Building Permit will be required prior to construction. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided no comments. Public Works permits will be required prior to any land disturbance. This item has been included in the draft conditions of approval. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed the plans. RCWD determined that a RCWD permit is not required as the proposed is outside of the current RCWD regulatory floodplain elevation. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources received the submitted plans for review and did not provide comments in time for the packet to be produced. Staff will share an update at the meeting. A draft condition of approval is that the Applicant shall obtain any required DNR approvals prior to the start of any site activities. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: Page 8 of 10 1. Mike and Katie Shepard are the owners of the property at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, Arden Hills, MN. 2. Mill City Design Build, on behalf of the property owners submitted a land use application for a variance to construct a porch addition at the Subject Property 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard. 3. The proposal would vary from the maximum floor area ratio (0.3) permitted in the R-2 Zoning District in that the proposed new porch expands the footprint of the existing dwelling and increases the floor area ratio to 0.336. 4. The Subject Property is a riparian lot with frontage on Lake Johanna and is subject to Shoreland Regulations. 5. The proposed addition would be set back 52.7 feet from Ordinary High Water Level and would be located outside of the required structure setback of 50 feet and will not be nearer to OHWL than the nearest adjacent structure. 6. The Applicant submitted the required shoreland mitigation plan for the proposed addition. 7. The proposed addition on the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 Zoning District and the Shoreland Regulations. Variance Findings: 8. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when consistent with the comprehensive plan. 9. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 10. The requested variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance because a porch is a common feature of a single-family dwelling use. 11. The requested variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan goal of maintaining a strong, vital diverse, and stable housing supply, uses site sensitive planning and design to protect the significant natural feature – Lake Johanna – abutting the property, and remains a residential use as shown on the Future Land Use map. 12. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner because a porch addition is a common amenity within residential zoning districts. 13. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner due to the unique grading and drainage issues posed by a shoreland property. 14. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the proposed porch will be incorporated into the profile of the existing dwelling and will have limited impacts to view from Lake Johanna and adjacent properties. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission may consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support the recommendation for approval and shall provide additional findings of fact for a recommendation of denial. • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval with conditions of Planning Case 26-012 for a variance to allow the property owner to construct a porch addition resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.336 and deviate from the 0.3 FAR standard at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the following conditions: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to the commencement of construction. Page 9 of 10 2. The proposed building addition shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 3. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s PW/Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. 4. Final grading, drainage, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 5. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, RCWD and DNR, prior to the start of any site activities. 6. The submitted shoreland mitigation plans shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 7. E. within one year of the plan's approval unless otherwise approved by the City. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval as submitted of Planning Case 26-012 for a variance to allow the property owner to construct a porch addition resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.336 and deviate from the 0.3 FAR standard at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, in the June 3, 2026 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case 26-012 for a variance to construct a porch addition resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.336 at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Move to table Planning Case 26-012 for a variance to construct a porch addition resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.336 at 3336 Lake Johanna Boulevard: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice A variance does not require a public hearing. A public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property on May 21, 2026, as required. A public meeting notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press on May 21, 2026. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public comment on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. The City had not received any public comments regarding this planning case at the time of publication. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 11, 2026. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by July 9, 2026 (60 days) unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60- day review period. With consent from the Applicant the City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Page 10 of 10 Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Proposed Site Survey E. Project Plans F. Shoreland Mitigation Plan Location Map Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 5/20/2026, 3:10:30 PM 0 0.04 0.080.02 mi 0 0.07 0.130.03 km 1:2,400 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN From:Mill City Design Build To:Elena Fransen Subject:Letter to Planning commission Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 8:47:42 AM Attachments:3336 Lake Johanna.pdf Matthew Schafer 10870 Lansing Ave N, Stillwater, MN 55082 808-649-9400 Millcitydesignbuild@gmail.com 05-11-2026 Arden Hills City Hall Attn: Elena Fransen, Senior Planner / Planning Department 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: Variance Request for Covered Porch - 3336 Lake Johanna Blvd., Arden Hills Dear Planning Commission and Zoning Staff, I am writing to respectfully request a variance from the Arden Hills City Code regarding Gross Floor Area (GFA) limitations to allow for the construction of a covered screened in porch under an proposed elevated deck at my property located at 3336 Lake Johanna Blvd. Project Proposal I propose to construct a 16x24 covered, open-air screen porch beneath our proposed second-story deck. This project involves adding a finished ceiling to the underside of the deck, lighting, and screened in walls. The project will not go beyond the footprint of the proposed deck above, but it will convert an open area into a covered area. This will be more attractive from the water view than an open deck underside with sight to mostly exposed existing concrete block foundation wall. Justification for Variance (Hardship and Consistency) 1. Unique Property Conditions: The lot has a slope/significant rear yard area that makes this space unusable during inclement weather or intense sun. The proposed covered porch allows for functional use of this space. 2. Reasonable Use: A covered porch is a typical and reasonable amenity in this neighborhood. The structure is located directly behind the home and will not impede views or negatively impact the privacy of surrounding neighbors. 3. Minimal Impact: The project is designed to be aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the architectural character of our home. 4. No Substantial Detriment: The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, cause traffic issues, or create excessive noise. 5. This proposed screen porch will enhance the look and use of the lot and will maintain the fine character of Arden Hills. 6. This variance is for family enjoyment of "lake life" and is not for economic reasons. I believe this proposal satisfies the standards for a variance in Arden Hills because it is a reasonable use of my property, and strict adherence to the GFA restrictions would prevent me from enjoying a common residential amenity. Included with this letter are the completed application form, the certificate of survey ('87 survey done), construction plans, and the required fees. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. I look forward to discussing this project at the next Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Matthew Schafer -- 10870 Lansing Ave N Stillwater, MN 55082 612-444-MCDB (6232) www.millcitydesignbuild.com www.facebook.com/millcitydesignbuild Residential Building Contractor Lic #BC726371 KEM PER 8c ASSOCIATES INC. W 1h, T I T C f SIDENCELANDSURVEYING * ENGINEERING TH N I N 721 OLD HIGHWAY 8 N.W. NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA 55112 9 651-631-0351 LOT FAX 651-631-8805 T Tj3336LAME JOHANNABOULEVARD SECTION 33, T30N, R23W FOUND RAMSEY COUNTY CASTIRON MONUMENT WITNESS CORNER TO ENTER CITY OF ARDEN HILLS , RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA OF SEC. 33, T30N, R23W A o a00 l; g _ i z 3 '0 5 10y 1 INCH EQUALS 10 FEET S t BASIS FOR BEARINGS. J . I RAMSEY COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM FORVICINITYMAPRAMiSEYCOUNTYABENCHMARK NO SCALE) THE RJOHANNABOA A P) E ELEVATION = 876.938 CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT LEGAL DESCRIPTION WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 2359252 That part of Lot 4, Section 33, Township 30, Range 23, lying east of the center line of Lake Johanna Road described as follows ADJACENT RESIDENCE 342#3 geFNT Commencing at a point 260 feet West from CON R the Northeast corner of Lot 4 Section 33, DRi w Township 30, Range 23, being center line of kAY OOD OfCk DECK I Lake Johanna Road; thence South on center line of said road 233 feet for place sosss10, all C.I of beginning of property hereby conveyed; F 22" WHITE PINE oa' LOT 12 r' o coQ thence South on last named line 50 feet; j O thence East 206.1 feet to meander line of oq'P0_ 9,03.79 xso3ss o BOARDWALK J Lake Johanna; thence Northerly on said 1 meander line 50 fee more or less to FOUND 9.4•50" E rn point due Eastfrom placeof beginning, goy IRON PIP 2 WOOD 8" SPRUCE 1 88 - - - S 67.09'25" W 0. 1 FENCE N CO CRETE RETAINING WALL 900.95 °0 - 8.25 89255 %- - gg0g$ _ - CRC RETAI NG W and thence West to place of beginning. 902.39 Now known as Lot 13, Auditor's Subdivision o - i s . 7 yL. -yls No. 80, Ramsey Co., Minn. DRAIN 884.41 f 11 r r 0 - - -- - - - - N 89'42'S0" E 33,00' w- POLE ANITARY j 90 .44 897.0 g3ag- w PLANTER E RIM WER m - 17.0 - d 3Cs" isLiyL 0 ui NORTH LINE 0 D AIN ----m=- 883.47 882.83 '>YLi;'>Yl1 O ANHOLE 9 ui 90 z MAIL WOOD OF LOT 13 R 98.41 O BOXES FENCE I IM 903.61 I I 902.92 900.06I, o- G NV N 891. TIMBER J J G i///////// 89 .19 883. 8 Uisii;'iti LOT AREA = 898.58 RETAININGGNVS892.0 3 .76 0, WADS t9,215 SQ. FT. 12" DIPG f 903.09 W o 898.47 ss1.28 J J TO SHORELINE)WATER MAIN Q. co0, co OVERHEAD a/ 890.55 ST NE MARKED IN rn rn O O / FLOOR ELEV. 898 84 91 PER CITY PLAN) UTILITY LINES N AS SERVICE Q r o a rn FIELD) 03.83 O a 904.46 0 PA fl0 J y rJ CD 882.87 0)r 4, to r I. F 907.60 908.07 N Oh c 0 40- ir f PEFWA31 I /LAKE z VALVE WEST UNE k FE 0j0 1.90/ RETAI ING 90.76 YL r Y W ARBORVITAE C WA JOHANNAWW.. OF LOT 13 ARBORVITAE a 907.08 3336 LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD yL3 I3 w F, WATER SERVICE "` 907.85 p I WOOD 90.66 yi PER CITY PLAN) 04.44 5.30 TWO STORY FRAME RESIDENCE DECK 881.53 907.55 0 f 881.90 ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEV. = 878 o 902.57 BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA=1,216 SQ. FT. yL W 1,,,r HIGHEST RECORDED ELEV 881.27 ( 7/03/78)905 15rW- I r 907.51 907.58 907.62=CENTRAL 898.21 w . - F 891.46 TIMBER j' y LOWEST RECORDED ELEV. = 870.35 (7/21/26) U w' 07.5 CONCRETE WALK AIR UNIT RETAINING r y 907.82 1912 DATUM) o. F n 9O5.2D I N N WALLS 1 c 3.15 i/i"//, ////////////, /, /////; p Q G Y r 24.19 Q GAS r i a O METER AS PER MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL m 882.26 yl RESOURCES LAKE FINDER WEBSITE) S SANITARY O 0 ';i D i0 SHORELINE O g r' w L r JULY 16, 2003 m FLOOR ELEV. 881.21 I WATER ELEV.=878.0 F._3.. . O / SEWER N METER 896.02 roo co OD o ro r I ( O D ELEC. 8 6.07 rn a ao co y O: Z I I NCjjQ I TIMBER 55 m n o z rn RETAINING m 47 1,•,iiGARAGE0DWALLSw3 vi o FOOTPRINT AREA=486 SQ. FT N I 33.29 881.851 azi FLOOR ELEV.=907.53 z i///!!/i %!/i/ ' //i%/i"i 8 6.11 895.55 88 .7 g LL 904.85 902.01 U) i 11 NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER LINE m MEANDER LINE OF LAKE JOHANNA o n N AS PER AUDITOR'S SUBD. N0. 80) OF SEC. 33, T30N, R23W - w I I 0io o A rn r1l IJ24.12 2" SPRUCE I f- -- - - - 75.00- LOOF L3 80.96-f3.04 ///i'//'/l%i/%///i ' ;'i:!///, 0,17.51907.42. n _. - - - - - - -n 9 2.78 6 N 89 42'50" E 33.00 9 66.39 N 903 52 901. 90 89494 907.30T 902.15 900. CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 894.58 0 O POWER 0742 89 O s e 89°42'50 E f17 o POLE FIRE 9 05.16 CONCRETE RETAINING WA 7. 6 12 B SANITA Y HYDRANT O vi MAN OLE N 9 0 m i ac RIM 902.21 i 8g1 O I IN N 889.9 14 O 00' 896 ro01 1 S 889.8 j LOT m CO 24" ASH Ory I Co co l J l qO q 32" 0 903.78 i/ 896.34 o CENT o o ADJACENT RESIDENCE #3330 36" OAK Ck OR 904.53 LEGEND 892 EXISTING CONTOUR LINE x891.46 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES SET SURVEY MONUMENT MARKED "KEMPER 18407" WOOD DECK I s r 1.- `` EC) O M PREPARED FOR: N W EARL & JULIE NOLTING N 3336 LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD o ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 55112 o 651-633-4333 t 0 oo ARCHITECT: ra: TIM FULLER, AIA k cERnAnoN FOUND RAMSEY COUNTY 1 SALA ARCHITECTS T x I;HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, M CAST IRON MONUMENT 3 43 MAIN STREET S.E. OR RESORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR o SOUTH QUARTER CORNER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55414 U E_MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 612-379-3037 r -A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ND OF SEC. 33, T30N, R23W t f OR UNDER THE WS OF THE ST TE IMINNESOTA. om r, f 4 i,-.: n...• r+ 11f`lfti1141141b FRONT OF 3336 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD. REAR OF 3336 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD. GARAGE AT 3336 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD.ADCERTIYIIIiOFSURVEILMARKD.`KEMPER 18407 1L DATED THIS DAY OF 2003 03185 ( 03185.DWG) D.B. TODD HOLEN From:Katie Shepard To:Elena Fransen Cc:Mill City Design Build; Mike Shepard Subject:Supplemental Responses--Shoreland Regulations Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 8:25:33 AM Hi Elena, Thank you again for all of your guidance and assistance throughout this process. We appreciate your time and help navigating the applicable City of Arden Hills shoreland regulations. I’m happy to provide additional responses to the outstanding questions below. Elevation/Floodplain The proposed structure substantially exceeds the applicable elevation requirement. The structure will be situated 16' feet above the OHWL, significantly exceeding the required 3' minimum standard. As proposed, the structure does not create additional floodplain concerns or adverse impacts to surrounding properties. Adjacent Lots/Shoreline Setback We acknowledge the shoreline setback provisions related to adjacent lots and understand the proposed structure is positioned closer to the OHWL than the nearest adjacent dwelling. However, the proposed structure fully complies with the minimum shoreline setback requirements set forth under the ordinance. Importantly, the proposed structure has been intentionally designed and situated to minimize visual impact and preserve the existing character of the shoreline corridor. Due to the elevation of the lot, surrounding topography, and the proposed architectural design, the structure will not materially impact shoreline views or the reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properties. In addition, we proactively discussed the proposal directly with the neighboring property owners most immediately affected by the project. They have expressed their support for the proposed structure and have not raised concerns regarding view obstruction, shoreline impacts, or compatibility with the surrounding area. Shoreland Mitigation The project incorporates multiple mitigation practices intended to minimize visual and environmental impacts while supporting shoreline protection and water quality objectives. First, the proposed structure incorporates architectural mass mitigation through the use of natural wood materials and earth-tone exterior finishes intended to complement the surrounding natural environment and reduce visual prominence from the shoreline and adjacent properties. Second, the project incorporates vegetation restoration measures intended to improve stormwater infiltration, reduce runoff toward the lake, stabilize soils, and support erosion control. Restoration efforts will focus on sloped portions of the property contributing drainage toward the shoreline and are anticipated to include native deep-rooted plantings and low- profile shrubbery compatible with the natural character of the property and existing shoreline views. We have also previously undertaken shoreline stewardship and erosion control improvements on the property as part of ongoing efforts to support shoreline stability and water quality protection. Collectively, these mitigation measures support the objectives of the City’s shoreland ordinance while enhancing the natural character and resilience of the property. Please let us know if any additional information or supporting materials are needed as part of the ongoing review process. Thank you, again— Katie Page 1 of 5 AGENDA ITEM – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 2026 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jake Reilly, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #26-010 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Kimley-Horn on behalf of Ramsey County Request: Ordinance Amendments to Zoning Code Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code Requirements – Street lighting spacing and multi-use trail width Commission Should Consider Kimley-Horn is proposing amendments to City Zoning Code Chapter 13 within Section 1380, TCAAP Redevelopment Code, modifying language pertaining to design standards for street lighting and multi-use trails along Rice Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission should review and consider the proposed ordinance amendments. During the discussion the Commission should also consider any public hearing testimony related to the ordinance. Background TCAAP Joint Development Authority In November 2012, the City Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Ramsey County which establishes a partnership between the City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County with the goal of the remediation and redevelopment of the 427-acre Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) site. Under the JPA, the City and County created a Joint Development Authority (JDA) that is the joint governing entity of the TCAAP site as allowed by the Joint Powers Act and MN State Laws. The JDA is the authority responsible for, but not limited to, environmental remediation, elimination of blight, infrastructure construction and financing, comprehensive planning and zoning, and economic development and redevelopment. The JDA Board is comprised of two County Commissioners, two City Councilmembers, and an additional non-elected City appointee as the Chair. Between 2013 – 2016, the city facilitated the process of developing the Master Plan for the TCAAP site, which as noted above was the responsibility of the city under the JPA. Planning elements of the Master Plan included defining the public engagement process, land use, circulation and Page 2 of 5 movement, utilities, environmental remediation, parks and open space, implementation plan, and a regulatory plan. In 2016, the City adopted the TRC, Section 1380 of the zoning code which includes the regulating plan, land use table, design standards, and other regulations related to land development that are specific to the TCAAP site. The proposed 427-acre redevelopment referred to as Rice Creek Commons will include: • Retail, office, and light industrial development • A town center • Well-defined neighborhoods with architectural diversity • A wide variety of housing options to serve young professionals, empty nesters, and seniors • Abundant parks and open space • Trails that provide for convenient and safe pedestrian access to commercial areas and other site amenities Through the JPA in the event the JDA believes the TCAAP Master Plan should be amended that shall be referred to the City and County for review. The city maintains the responsibility for processing TRC and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. As part of a TRC Amendment, the City will request confirmation of approval by Ramsey County. The JPA identifies two classifications of an Amendment to the TCAAP Master Plan: 1) Major Amendment – Requires the City to amend its Comprehensive Plan. 2) Minor Amendment – Does not involve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and is a change within a Development Site (i.e. TRC Zoning Districts). Rice Creek Boulevard Design Standards The Rice Creek Commons Public Infrastructure Improvements team is responsible for the overall scope, progress, and key design for Rice Creek Commons. With preparations for the construction of Rice Creek Boulevard (formerly known as the Spine Road) underway, the Public Infrastructure Improvements team identified lighting and trail design as topics that require further JDA discussion and direction to ensure alignment with project goals and the overall design intent. The team drafted the attached ordinance amendment language and prepared background information for the JDA to consider at the February 2nd Work Session. Following the February 2 discussion, during which the JDA reached consensus around the amendment to the TRC-required multi-use trail design width, the item was brought back to the March 10 Special JDA Meeting with more information to support additional discussion on the topic of lighting. The JDA reached consensus around the proposed amendments for lighting, and a recommendation was made for City and County staff to bring the two TRC amendments requested by Ramsey County to the respective elected bodies for consideration. The Applicant presented the proposed amendments to the City Council at the April 27th Work Session Meeting. The City Council reached consensus that the amendments could be advanced to the Planning Commission for review. Overview of Ordinance Amendments The proposed ordinance amendments are included for the Planning Commissions review as Attachments C and D. The drafted language would allow for greater intervals between streetlights along Rice Creek Boulevard and allow for a reduction in the minimum width for shared use paths and trails on Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet. As these amendments are to Section Page 3 of 5 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code, they would only be applicable to infrastructure associated with the Rice Creek Commons area of Arden Hills. Section 10 – Streetscape and Landscape Standards, Subsection 10.5 – Street Lighting Current Language Street lighting requirements established in Subsection 10.5 of Streetscape and Landscape Standards. The existing code language establishes forty (40) feet as the average distance required between streetlights. The Applicant states that this standard would result in light spacing that is much closer than is typical or desirable and would require approximately 200 streetlights along the length of the Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor where 40 streetlights could provide adequate lighting. The Applicant notes that the code as written could also be interpreted to allow for no lighting designed for Rice Creek Boulevard. Proposed Language The Applicant proposes to amend the street lighting ordinance to make street lighting required infrastructure along Rice Creek Boulevard and to establish a different standard for spacing. The proposed language adds standards for vehicular light and pedestrian-oriented light placement in relation to curbing and sidewalks or trails. The language also replaces the 40-foot average spacing requirement for streetlights with a requirement that lighting is spaced adequately to meet Recommended Footcandle Levels established in the MnDOT Roadway Lighting Design Manual. In the submitted narrative, the Applicant states that the amended language is supported by County precedence and MnDOT best practices. Amending the language will ensure infrastructure design includes street lighting that is appropriate for the Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor. It is also noted that the Recommended Footcandle Levels approach would reduce the number of lights required from 200 to 40, resulting in infrastructure cost savings of $1,600,000 as well as long-term maintenance and operation costs for the additional lights. Attachment #2 Palette of Open Space Types, Subsection 1.g. – Public Open Space Types – Multi- Use Trail Standards Current Language The minimum width for multi-use trails along Spine Road or through neighborhoods is established in Attachment #2 Palette of Open Space Types in the TRC. The minimum width of 12 feet is the same for multi-use trails, whether they are along the main Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor or along a neighborhood road. The Applicant explains that a minimum width of 12 feet exceeds previous designs, Ramsey County standards and precedence, and City standards and precedence, all of which are generally 10 feet maximum. The required 12-foot trail width would also exceed the Rice Creek Watershed District’s treatment exemption, capped at 10 feet in width, and would therefore require additional stormwater treatment volume. Additional costs are estimated for the additional trail width and additional stormwater treatment. Proposed Language The Applicant has submitted draft ordinance language that separates the requirements for multi- use trails through neighborhoods from multi-use trails along Spine Road (Rice Creek Boulevard). The language changes the minimum multi-use trail width for trails along Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet. This minimum trail width is in line with current Ramsey County and Arden Hills trail design standards as well as the minimum recommended multi-use trail widths from Page 4 of 5 MnDOT’s Bikeway Facility Design Guide and ADA and Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. The Applicant states that reducing the minimum required trail width along Rice Creek Boulevard would also qualify the trail for a Rice Creek Watershed District Rules exception for trails that are 10 feet or less that are also bordered by down-gradient vegetation or vegetated filter strop of at least 5 feet, which the Rice Creek Boulevard right-of-way contains. Meeting the criteria for the RCWD exception would allow for a relative reduction in required stormwater treatment volume compared to the requirements for a 12-foot width trail. Reducing the required trail width from 10 feet to 12 feet would reduce project costs for stormwater treatment and trail materials. The Applicant notes that while there is sufficient space within the Natural Resources Corridor to provide the necessary treatment volume for a 12-foot-wide trail, this volume would reduce capacity for future developments within Rice Creek Commons. Cost and stormwater treatment estimates are provided by the Applicant. Notice A Zoning Code Amendment requires a public hearing. Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on May 21, 2026. The city has not yet received any public comments regarding this case. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: • The Applicant is proposing to amend ordinance language in Chapter 13 – Zoning Code Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code. • The proposed ordinance amendment would allow for streetlight spacing along the length of the Rice Creek Boulevard Corridor that meets the Recommended Footcandle Levels as established in the MnDOT Roadway Lighting Design Manual. • The Applicant states that the proposed ordinance language will ensure adequate lighting while reducing infrastructure costs and long-term maintenance and operation costs. • The proposed ordinance amendment would allow for a minimum multi-use trail width of 10 feet along Rice Creek Boulevard. • The Applicant states that the proposed ordinance language would meet minimum width standards as set by MnDOT’s Bikeway Facility Design Guide, ADA and Public Right-of- Way Accessibility Guidelines, and other local standards while minimizing costs for additional trail width and additional stormwater treatment under the Rice Creek Watershed District. • The proposed ordinance amendments are generally in the public interest and in keeping with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. • Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Options and motion language • Recommend Approval: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-010 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments Page 5 of 5 Ordinance to Chapter 13 in Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code of the Arden Hills City Code to modify language to allow for greater intervals between streetlights along Rice Creek Boulevard and allow for a reduction in the minimum width for shared use paths and trails on Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet as discussed in the June 3, 2026 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case 26-010 as presented for Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance to Chapter 13 in Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code of the Arden Hills City Code to modify language to allow for greater intervals between streetlights along Rice Creek Boulevard and allow for a reduction in the minimum width for shared use paths and trails on Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. • Table: Move to table Planning Case 26-010 as presented for Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance to Chapter 13 in Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code of the Arden Hills City Code to modify language to allow for greater intervals between streetlights along Rice Creek Boulevard and allow for a reduction in the minimum width for shared use paths and trails on Rice Creek Boulevard from 12 feet to 10 feet: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Budget Impact N/A Attachments Attachment A: Land Use Application Attachment B: Applicant Narrative and Appendices Attachment C: Draft Language – Section 1380 – Attachment #2 Palette of Open Space Types – Public Open Space Types – Multi-Use Trail Standards Attachment D: Draft Language – Section 1380 – Subsection 10.5 Street Lighting Page 1 of 3 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org For Office Use Only Planning Case No. 26- Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2026 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: Telephone No.: Other: Fax No.: Email Address: Property Information Property Owner: Owner Address: Owner Telephone No. Other: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Property ID No.: Type of Use: Zone: Property Acreage: Type of Request  Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500)  Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500)  Preliminary Plat (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500)  Final Plat (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Concept Plan Review (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500)  Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $2,000)  Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Development Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Site Plan Review (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $1,500)  Rezoning or Rice Creek Commons Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500)  Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,000)  City Code Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,000)  Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way (Fee: $200 + Escrow: $1,000)  Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $200 + Escrow: $1,500)  Land Use Requests – Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) Kimley Horn (on behalf of Ramsey County) Ramsey County 1425 Paul Kirkwold Dr, Arden Hills, MN 55112 427 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 651-643-0481 Michael.kirsch@kimley-horn.com x 163023210003 163023210004 0 RICE CREEK BLVD ARDEN HILLS MN 55112-1551 620 EXEMPT PROP. OWNED BY COUNTY 620 EXEMPT PROP. OWNED BY CNTY Section 16/ Township 30/Range 23 651-266-7105 Page 2 of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project): Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the Community Development Director to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or City Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the Community Development Director on a project by project basis. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. *IMPORTANT* • Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. • The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. • All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Rice Creek Commons TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment - see attachment below for additional information for amendment proposed. Page 3 of 3 Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. 2026 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 p.m.) TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION (1st day of the preceding month) January 7 February 9 December 1 (2025) February 4 March 9 January 2 March 4 April 13 February 2 April 8 April 27 March 2 May 6 May 26* April 1 June 3 June 22 May 1 July 8 July 27 June 1 August 5 August 24 July 1 September 9 September 28 August 3 October 7 October 26 September 1 November 4 November 23 October 1 December 9 January 11 (2027) November 2 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements. I fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. __________________________________________________ ________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date ________________________________________________ ________________ Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the Community Development Director at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City’s website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications 5/1/2026 5/1/2026 (g)Multi-Use Trail Standards A multi-use trail is a linear public open space that accommodates two or more users on the same, undivided trail. Trail users could include pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, etc. A trail frequently provides an important place for active recreation and creates a connection to regional paths and biking trails. Pedestrian amenities add to recreational opportunities. These include drinking fountains, scenic view posts, fitness stations, and directional signs, and may be spread along the trail or grouped in a trailhead area. Typical Characteristics General Character Multi-use trail in Neighborhood Park: Naturally disposed landscape Trees lining trail for shade Appropriately lit for safety Formally disposed pedestrian furniture, landscaping and lighting Multi-use trail through neighborhoods.: Paved trail with frequent gathering spaces and regular landscaping. Standards Min. Width 12 feet Multi-use trail along Spine Road (Rice Creek Boulevard) Paved trail with frequent gathering spaces and regular landscaping. Standards Min. Width 10 feet Typical Uses Active and passive recreation 10.5 Street Lighting: Street lighting should be provided on Spine, Town, Collector and Collector with Trail roads. Refer to Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual for lighting palette. The following standards shall apply for pedestrian scale lighting: (a) Vehicular lighting shall be a maximum of thirty feet (30’) in height and pedestrian- oriented lighting a maximum of eighteen feet (18’) in height. (b) Street lights shall be placed at an average of forty feet (40’) on center, approximately three (3) feet behind the back of curb, aligned with street trees, and where street trees are planted.All lighting shall be placed at spacing adequate to meet Recommended Footcandle Levels as established in Section 4.1.1.3 of the MnDOT Roadway Lighting Design Manual. (c) Vehicular lights shall be placed approximately three (3) feet behind the back of the curb. (d) Pedestrian-oriented lights shall be placed approximately two (2) feet away from sidewalks or trails within proposed green space and outside of required clear zones. (ec) The light standard selected shall be compatible with the design of the street and buildings. (fd) All other standards for street lighting shall direct light downward or properly shielded with three-quarter (¾) or fully shielded fixtures to prevent glare. (ge) High efficiency lighting, such as LED lamps, is required. Page 1 of 11 PC Agenda Item – 3C MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 2026 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #26-008 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Vector Styling, Inc. dba TINT WORLD Property Location: 3761 Lexington Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Requested Action Vector Styling, Inc. (“The Applicant”) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to operate a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation facility in 3,900 square feet of the existing 10,108 square foot service station and retail sales facility at 3761 Lexington Avenue (“Subject Property”). As part of site plan review, the Applicant seeks a sign standard adjustment to install 110 square feet of new signage on the property. Background 1. Overview of Request The Applicant submitted a land use application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review at the Subject Property. The Applicant plans to lease 3,900 square feet of an existing facility for a new business, TINT WORLD. The proposed space would combine two tenant spaces into one and share the building with TGK Tires, another service station use. A Conditional Use Permit is required for a service station use within the proposed 3,900 square foot tenant space. The Applicant proposes to combine the two unoccupied tenant spaces into one and use five existing bay areas for services and provide a retail area and waiting room for customers. Employee and customer parking needs will be met by 30 parking spaces to the south and west of the tenant space. An application for a Conditional Use Permit requires a Site Plan Review application. Through the site plan review process, an applicant can request flexibility from the strict application of the zoning code by applying for a Sign Standard Adjustment as part of site plan review. The applicant proposes two 55 square foot wall signs be installed above the main entrance. The property is located in Sign District 5. The maximum amount of signage allowed in Sign District 5 is 80 square feet. Page 2 of 11 2. History of the Subject Property In 1988, the City Council approved a Special Use Permit for C.G. Rein Company to develop the Subject Property (PC 88-014). Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company operated an automobile service center consisting of a 10,108 square foot principal building with 6,208 square feet of service area and 3,900 square feet of retail space. In 1989, a Special Use Permit was approved in PC 89-004 for a transmission repair shop to operate in 1,600 square feet of the building. A 1,200 square foot space stayed designated for retail sales use. Several entities have used the site since those approvals. Midwest Detailing, another service station use, most recently operated in the westernmost tenant space and Enterprise was previously approved for a Special Use Permit to operate a vehicle leasing/rental company from the retail tenant space which was later taken over by U-Haul after 2022. In late 2025, Midwest Detailing vacated the property. U-Haul ceased operations at this site before 2025. When the use for which a conditional use permit has been granted has ceased or has been discontinued for a period of ninety (90) consecutive days, the permit shall automatically expire and become void at the end of such ninety (90) day period. The Applicant is required to obtain a new conditional use permit for the proposed use. Approvals 1. Conditional Use Permit A CUP is required in city code for service stations in the B-3 Zoning District. Arden Hills Zoning Code Section 1355.04 Subd. 3 lists the general criteria for evaluating Conditional Use Permit Applications. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land and the community, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: 1. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3. Drainage; 4. Population density; 5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; 6. Adjoining land values; 7. Park dedications where applicable; 8. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. Under state law a “conditional use” is a use that is generally allowed in a designated district upon the applicant showing that the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied. Conversely, if the applicant is unable to show that the ordinance standards are met, the application can be denied. Conditions may be added to any approval to ensure that the use does not negatively impact surrounding properties or the public way. Page 3 of 11 The Applicant’s narrative provides details for the proposed use and states that the use is compatible with the B-3 Zoning District standards and other uses within the zoning district. 2. Site Plan Review The Applicant seeks to operate a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation facility in 3,900 square feet of the existing 10,108 square foot service station and retail sales facility. A site plan review and evaluation of site conditions are required as part of the Applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit. The Applicant proposes to install new wall signage on the south and east elevations of the building. The site plan review includes a review of requirements for parking and design standards as they relate to the zoning district and proposed use. Plan Evaluation The proposed is subject to Zoning Code standards established in Section 1320, District Provisions, Section 1325.05, Design Standards and Section 1325.06, Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation. Also applicable are Sign Code standards established in Chapter 12 of the City Code. The following evaluation identifies how the Applicant’s proposal addresses where standards are met and/or nonconforming and/or where flexibility is required. Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (B-3 Service Business District) – Section 1320 Under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, this site is guided as Community (COM) on the land use plan and is zoned B-3. The Future Land Use designation is for a broad range of retail, shopping, and services to meet the needs of the community and region. Compatible uses such as office buildings are also intended for this area. Direction 2040 Comp. Plan Land Use Zoning Existing Land Uses North COM - Commercial B-3 Service Business District Retail/Grocery Store South COM - Commercial B-3 Service Business District Car Wash West CMU - Community Mixed Use B-4 Retail Center District Retail and Other Commercial Uses A service station is allowed by a conditional use permit within this district. The table below provides the standards for the B-3 District and the preliminary analysis for the principal structure and the site: Ordinance Requirements B-3 District Standards Existing Development Proposed Development Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.8 0.21 Complies, No change Maximum Structure Coverage 40% 21.4% Complies, No change Minimum Landscape Lot Area 25% 27.5% Complies, No change Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 feet 95 feet Complies, No change Page 4 of 11 Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 130 feet Complies, No change Minimum Side Yard Setback 20 feet (min)/ 40 feet (total) 20 feet and 20 feet/ 40 feet Complies, No change Minimum Lot Area 13,000 square feet 54,450 square feet Complies, No change Maximum Building Height 35 feet >35 feet Complies, No change 2. Design Standards – Section 1325.05 Landscaping – Meets Requirements A landscaping plan is not required for this application. Only new development construction or expansion of an existing building or parking lot require a landscaping plan to be submitted. The minimum landscaped area required for the B-3 Zoning District is 25 percent of the total lot area. The Subject Property contains an existing landscaped area of 27.5 percent of the total lot area. The Applicant is not proposing changes that would increase or decrease the existing landscaped area. Lighting – Meets Requirements The Subject Property has a light fixture in the parking lot area to the west side of the building. The Applicant is not proposing to add lighting to the building site. Design Standards for New Development, Redevelopment, and Modifications to Existing Sites in the B2 and B3 Districts The Subject Property is an existing site in the B-3 Zoning District and is subject to design standards established in 1325.05 Subdivision 8. The standards in this Section apply only to the building or site elements being developed or altered. The design standards shall be applied proportionately to the degree of change proposed. Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council may waive specific design standards based on the scale of the project. The City Council shall make the final determination on compatibility and consistency with the design standards. The Applicant intends to make interior modifications to combine two tenant spaces. Exterior work would consist of striping parking spaces to the west of the building, adding a gate to the existing trash enclosure, adding a handicap parking space, and installing new wall signage. The building and parking area changes are subject to the standards established in the code. The standards are evaluated below: Architectural Style, Building Character, Materials and Design – Standard met. Buildings shall be constructed of materials that are enduring, timeless, and well-detailed. Evaluation of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and on its relationship to its surroundings. The existing single-story building is constructed from brick and decorative concrete masonry and glazed tile. The Applicant states that they will not make changes to the building’s exterior. Building Color – Standard met. Building colors shall be muted and recommended colors include browns, grays, tans, beiges, and dark or muted green, blues, and reds. The existing exterior is a muted gray with blue accents. The building colors will not be changed as part of the proposal. Signs – Sign Standard Adjustment Requested. Page 5 of 11 The Applicant proposes to install new wall signage on the southern and eastern elevation of the Subject Property. To install additional signage, the Applicant must request flexibility from the City Code, Chapter 12 – Sign Code through the Site Plan Review process. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. The Applicant’s request for flexibility is initiated through the Site Plan Review process due to the nature of the sign standard adjustment and the previous land use approvals for the site. The Site Plan Review process allows for the Applicant’s request for an additional 110 square feet of wall signage on the southern and eastern elevation of the building. The approval of this application would apply to any use of that particular sign to any subsequent user. If the sign is removed or modified by a subsequent user, then the approval ceases. The proposal is also subject to requirements in Chapter 12 - Sign Code requirements which are evaluated later in this report. Screening – Standard can be met. Section 1325.05, Subd. 8, K, Trash and recycling equipment, materials, and containers shall be fully enclosed and integrated into the architecture of the buildings. All mechanical equipment, whether roof-mounted or ground-mounted should be integrated into the architecture of the building. Truck docks and delivery areas shall face away from the public street and shall be integrated into the architecture of the building. There is a trash enclosure area on the existing site with three sides. The Applicant proposes to have a gate installed to enclose the trash and meet the screening requirement. and there are two delivery areas for the principal structure on the west and south elevations. The business location is setup to meet the requirements for delivery areas. Landscaping – Standard met. The minimum landscaped area required in the B-3 zoning district is 25% of the lot area. A minimum of one (1) tree shall be placed along the right-of-way every forty (40) feet. The Subject Property meets the minimum required landscaped area for the zoning district. No landscaping changes are proposed with the land use application. Parking – Standard met. Sufficient parking shall be provided to accommodate reasonable hourly peak on a given site. Parking standards include using plantings to soften and shade parking lots, screening parking adjacent to public streets, and using parking islands to break up expansive lots. The Applicant has provided a map of 30 parking spaces that will be used by the business. The existing parking lot includes plantings, screening, or parking islands. The standard for landscaping within parking areas includes a minimum requirement of 10 percent of the total landscaped area to include perennials and shrubbery and at least 10 percent of the parking areas include planting islands. The proposal is also subject to additional parking requirements in Section 1325.06 which are evaluated later in this report. Traffic Study – Recommendation to waive requirement A traffic study shall be required for all new developments, redevelopments, and significant modifications to existing sites unless waived by the City Council. The Applicant offers sufficient data in the application to demonstrate the proposed use will not result in a large amount of additional traffic and that the current conditions of the site can support the anticipated traffic. Page 6 of 11 Lighting – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code requires exterior lighting that is consistent in type, design, scale, and color to create unity in the district. Exterior lighting for parking lots and buildings shall not be excessive and shall be directed at their intended purposes. Any light or combination of lights shall not cast light that exceeds a meter reading of one foot candle on the travel lanes of adjoining public streets or 0.4 foot candles on adjoining residential property. The Applicant has not proposed additional lighting. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code establishes standards for pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the B-3 Zoning District. The Subject Property does not connect to any public sidewalk but there are pathways from the building entrances to the right-of-way and site parking lot. The proposal does not include any changes to these existing conditions. 3. Section 1325.06 - Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation The Applicant’s proposal includes restriping the existing parking area and adding a handicap parking space. The proposed modifications are in line with the parking size and construction standards established in Section 1325.06. Staff have evaluated the proposal based on the requirements for commercial parking spaces. Location – Meets Requirements The City Code requires off-street parking spaces to be located at a minimum of 20 feet from the right-of-way of any public street. For side and rear setbacks, off-street parking spaces are required to be located a minimum of five (5) feet from rear and side lot lines. The existing parking lot meets the location requirements and there are no proposed changes to the location of parking spaces. Off Street Parking Spaces Required – Meets Requirements The Applicant has identified 30 parking spaces will be used for the proposed business. For a service station use, the City Code requires three (3) off-street parking spaces for each enclosed bay plus 1 for each employee on peak work shift. The tenant space will have five (5) enclosed bays and the narrative states that a maximum of four employees will be staffed on peak work shift. Based on the material provided by the applicant, a total of 19 parking spaces is required for the proposed use and 30 parking spaces are proposed to be provided. Page 7 of 11 Demonstrated Off-Street Parking for Proposed Use 4. Chapter 12, Sign Code Section 1240.02 – Sign Standards by Sign District – Sign Standard Adjustment requested The Subject Property is located within the B-3 General Business District and falls under Sign District 5. Sign District 5 includes all properties fronting on Lexington Avenue South of Interstate 694. Sign District 5 allows for a maximum of 80 square feet of copy area for wall signage. The Subject Property has a total of 80 square feet in existing wall signage associated with the other tenant within the building. The Applicant is proposing two (2) additional 55 square foot wall sign on the southern and eastern elevations of the building. The Applicant is requesting flexibility to allow an additional 110 square feet of wall signage to construct the proposed wall sign and for a total of 190 square feet of wall signage to be permitted on the building. The proposed wall sign would be internally lit with LED-illuminated letter sets, as permitted in Sign District 5. Proposed Signage on Southern and Eastern Elevations Page 8 of 11 Proposed Signage Details Proposed Signage as seen from Lexington Avenue North Section 1260.01 – Sign Standard Adjustments The Applicant requests a sign standard adjustment for additional square footage of wall signage area. City Code Section 1260.01, Sign Standard Adjustments states “adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process.” To approve any sign standard adjustment, the Planning Commission must determine if the proposed signage meets the sign standard adjustment criteria. The following criteria of Subd. 1 or Subd. 2 shall be satisfied, and the necessary criteria of Subd. 3 shall be satisfied: 1. Subd. 1 There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site. The west end of the building faces south and has little visibility from Lexington Avenue. The site is also constrained as there is a median on Lexington Avenue that prevents traffic heading north to access the site and it is difficult for southbound traffic to see the store front from Lexington. The proposed signage, in conjunction with the freestanding sign, Page 9 of 11 would allow customers to see that there are multiple businesses and entrances on the site from Lexington Avenue. 2. Subd. 2 The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site. This criterion does not apply. 3. Subd. 3 The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. The proposed signage is consistent in the style and size as others in this building, zoning district, and current land use. The request is for slightly more sign area that can be viewed from Lexington Avenue. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official reviewed the plans and provided no comments. A Building Permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. This has been added as a condition of approval. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided no comments. Findings of Fact General Findings: 1. The applicant has a lease agreement for space in the subject property located at 3761 Lexington Avenue, Arden Hills, MN. 2. The Subject Property is located within the Service Business District designated for Commercial Uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Subject Property is zoned B-3 Service Business. 4. A service station use requires a conditional use permit in the B-3 District. 5. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 5, where the maximum wall signage permitted is 80 square feet. 6. The Subject Property has two existing wall signs for a total of 80 square feet. 7. Section 1260.01, adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by Chapter 12 Sign Code may be approved with a Site Plan Review. 8. The Applicant applied for a site plan review with a sign standard adjustment and conditional use permit to establish a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation service station at 3761 Lexington Avenue. 9. The applicant requested a sign standard adjustment to install an additional 110 square feet of wall signage, bringing the total building wall signage to 190 square feet. 10. The Applicant proposes to restripe the parking lot on the site, install a gate to the existing trash enclosure, and provide an additional accessible parking space. 11. The Applicant requests to waive the requirement for a traffic study. The Applicant offers sufficient data in the application to demonstrate the proposed use will not result in a large Page 10 of 11 amount of additional traffic and that the current conditions of the site can support the anticipated traffic. 12. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 13. The proposed use is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 14. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 15. The proposed plan is not expected to have significant impact on traffic or parking conditions. 16. A public hearing is required for a conditional use permit. 17. Property owners within 1000 feet of the subject property were notified of the application as established in city code. Options and Motion Language Staff offers the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission may consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval and should provide findings are part of a motion for denial. Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 26-008 for a site plan review with sign standards adjustment and a conditional use permit to establish a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation service station and install up to an additional 110 square feet in wall signage at 3751 Lexington Avenue, based on the findings of fact in the June 3, 2026, Planning Commission report, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The proposed parking area shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 3. A Building Permit shall be obtained for alterations to the existing principal structure. 4. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign on the site. 5. Any future trash enclosure shall use gates and be constructed on three sides using the similar or complementary materials, colors, and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of 26-008 for a site plan review and conditional use permit to establish a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation service station and install up to an additional 110 square feet in wall signage at 3751 Lexington Avenue, based on the findings of fact in the June 3, 2026, Planning Commission report and the submitted plans. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of 26-008 for a site plan review and conditional use permit to establish a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation service station and install up to an additional 110 square feet in wall signage at 3751 Lexington Avenue, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. Page 11 of 11 • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 26-008 for a site plan review and conditional use permit to establish a vehicle window tinting and stereo installation service station and install up to an additional 110 square feet in wall signage at 3751 Lexington Avenue: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Comments Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on May 21, 2026. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. At the time of report drafting, the city had not received public comments on this planning case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 1, 2026. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the city must act on this request by June 29, 2026 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The sixty (60) day timeline begins on the day the City is in receipt of what has been determined to be a complete application. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Narrative D. Aerial View of the Site E. Parking Spaces F. Proposed Sign Plans Page 1 of 3 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org For Office Use Only Planning Case No. 26- Submittal Date: Application Complete: Accepted by: Receipt Number: Council Decision: Council Decision Date: 2026 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: Phone No.: Other: Email Address: Property Information Property Owner: Owner Address: Phone No. Other: Site Address: Legal Description: Property ID (PIN): Type of Use: Zone: Property Acreage: Type of Request Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500) Conditional Use/Interim Use Permit or Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500) Preliminary Plat (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500)Final Plat (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) Concept Plan Review (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) Master Planned Unit Development or MasterSpecial Development Plan(Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500) Final Planned Unit Development or Final SpecialDevelopment Plan (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $2,000) Planned Unit Development or SpecialDevelopment Plan Amendment(Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) Site Plan Review (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $1,500)Rezoning or Rice Creek Commons RegulatingPlan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500) Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,000) City Code Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow:$2,000) Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)Variance or Permitted Adjustment(Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way(Fee: $200 + Escrow: $1,000) Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $200 +Escrow: $1,500) Land Use Requests – Not Already Specified(Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) Page 2 of 3 Brief Description of Request (Include a legible, detailed letter explaining the project): Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the Community Development Director to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or City Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the Community Development Director on a project by project basis. *IMPORTANT* •Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. •The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. •All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Page 3 of 3 Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM. Please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. Planning cases are typically reviewed by City Council on the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. 2026 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 p.m.) TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION (1st day of the preceding month) January 7 February 9 December 1 (2025) February 4 March 9 January 2 March 4 April 13 February 2 April 8 April 27 March 2 May 6 May 26* April 1 June 3 June 22 May 1 July 8 July 27 June 1 August 5 August 24 July 1 September 9 September 28 August 3 October 7 October 26 September 1 November 4 November 23 October 1 December 9 January 11 (2027) November 2 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements. I fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. ________________ Date ________________ _________________________________________________ _ Property Owner Signature (Required) ________________________________________________ Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the Community Development Department at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City’s website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications As Agent for Owner Location Map 0 0.04 0.080.02 mi 0 0.07 0.130.03 km 1:2,400 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN 6uEMect Property Personal Property Tax Parcels Conditional Use Permit Narrative Tint World Automotive Styling Center – Arden Hills Project Name Tint World Automotive Styling Center – Arden Hills Project Location 3761 Lexington Avenue North Arden Hills, MN 55126 Proposed Hours of Operation Monday thru Saturday: 8 am to 6 pm Applicant / Owner Nick Jorczak Vector Styling Inc., DBA Tint World 10045 32nd Ave North, Plymouth MN 55441 Project Overview and Intended Use The applicant proposes to operate a Tint World Automotive Styling Center within the existing commercial building located at 3761 Lexington Avenue North. Tint World is a nationally recognized franchise specializing in automotive appearance, protection, and electronics installation services, residential and commercial services, including: Automotive Services  Automotive Window tinting  Paint protection film (PPF) installation  Vehicle wraps and graphics  Ceramic coatings and detailing services  Automotive electronics including remote starts, audio systems, security systems, and driver safety solutions Residential and Commercial Services  Residential window tinting  Commercial window tinting  Energy efficiency and solar protection solutions for architectural applications These services are designed to improve:  Vehicle and property aesthetics  Comfort and privacy  Energy efficiency  Long-term asset preservation Operational Distinction from Traditional Automotive Uses The proposed use is substantially different from traditional automotive repair facilities and should be evaluated accordingly. The business will NOT include:  Does not perform engine repair, transmission work, or mechanical diagnostics  Does not involve vehicle dismantling or heavy equipment use  Does not involve outdoor service bays or outdoor work areas  Does not involve used motor oil or transmission fluid that need to be properly discarded All services will be:  Conducted entirely indoors  Appointment-based  Retail-service oriented  Professionally managed under franchise operational standards  Low-impact in terms of traffic, noise, and environmental burden This distinction is critical in demonstrating compatibility with surrounding commercial uses and minimizing concerns often associated with automotive-related CUP applications. Site-Specific Conditions and Supplemental Property Considerations As detailed in the supplemental application materials, the subject property possesses unique site characteristics that affect business functionality and visibility:  The leased tenant space is located at the west end of the building  The storefront faces south, limiting direct exposure from Lexington Avenue North  A roadway median restricts northbound direct access  Southbound traffic has limited storefront visibility due to building orientation  Building sign allocation is limited despite multiple tenant spaces These conditions create legitimate operational challenges while reinforcing the need for:  Effective site planning  Professional signage visibility  Strong brand recognition  Enhanced customer accessibility The applicant’s request reflects practical site realities while maintaining consistency with zoning intent and corridor aesthetics. Proactive Response to Likely Staff and Planning Commission Concerns 1. Prevention of Automotive Use Intensification (“Use Creep”) A common concern is that automotive businesses may gradually expand into more intensive repair operations. Applicant Commitments:  Operations strictly limited to approved styling, protection, and electronics services  No heavy repair or service expansion  No body shop or collision operations  No salvage functions  Any material operational changes would require City review and approval Result: This ensures the use remains permanently aligned with its approved low-intensity commercial profile. 2. Outdoor Storage and Visual Appearance Applicant Commitments:  No outdoor storage of parts, tires, or equipment  No storage of inoperable vehicles  No dismantling or salvage  Property maintained to professional retail-commercial standards  High-quality storefront and franchise brand presentation Result: The site will maintain and potentially enhance corridor aesthetics and surrounding property values. 3. Traffic, Access, and Parking Operational Characteristics:  Appointment-based scheduling  Moderate and predictable traffic generation  Existing parking supply remains adequate – See Arial view – site plan – TINT WORLD – Arden Hills, MN attachment  No excessive vehicle queueing  No major site circulation modifications required Result: Traffic impacts remain compatible with existing commercial land uses. 4. Environmental Protection Applicant Commitments:  No oil changes or fluid disposal operations  No fuel system repair  No hazardous automotive waste streams typical of repair garages  No outdoor chemical storage  Full compliance with environmental regulations Result: The project poses minimal environmental risk. 5. Noise, Odor, and Compatibility Applicant Commitments:  No engine testing  No exhaust work  No fabrication  Minimal indoor-only operational noise  No material odor generation Result: Operational intensity remains comparable to standard service-commercial tenants. Signage and Commercial Visibility Integration The supplemental signage request directly supports the long-term viability of the proposed business by addressing site-specific visibility constraints. Signage Objectives: The criteria in Subd. 1 and 3 apply to this request for sign standard adjustment: Subd.1 There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site.  Space being leased to Vector Styling, Inc is at the west end of the building and faces south, providing very little visibility from Lexington Avenue N.  A median prevents traffic flowing north from making a left turn into this property.  Traffic flowing south cannot see the store front because the entrance faces south.  A total of 2 tenants occupy this building and only 80 ft of signs are permitted for the entire building. The Senior Planner with the City of Arden Hills confirmed TINT WORLD would be allowed only 40 sf of sign area and, technically, TINT WORLD occupies two spaces in this building. Subd. 3 The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use.  The signs being proposed are consistent in the style and size as others in this building, zoning district and/or current land use. Vector Styling is asking for this variance to be granted slightly more sign area that can be read from Lexington Avenue N. Applicant Commitment: All signage will remain:  Professionally designed  Architecturally compatible  Consistent with neighboring commercial properties  Supportive of City aesthetic standards  See 532186 – R2 – ARDEN HILLS, MN attachment This integrated approach ensures both CUP and signage considerations work together to support successful, compliant occupancy. Compliance with Arden Hills Zoning Code Section 1355.04 Subd. 3(B) Comprehensive Plan Compatibility The proposed use advances City goals by:  Supporting economic reinvestment  Strengthening commercial corridor vitality  Promoting high-quality franchise business occupancy  Enhancing underutilized commercial property Public Health, Safety, and Welfare The project:  Minimizes nuisance impacts  Protects surrounding uses  Utilizes existing infrastructure efficiently  Preserves public safety and welfare Orderly Development This proposal:  Reuses an existing developed site  Avoids unnecessary site disruption  Supports stable tax-generating occupancy  Strengthens Lexington Avenue commercial investment Conclusion The proposed Tint World Automotive Styling Center represents a modern, carefully controlled, low-impact commercial automotive use that is operationally distinct from traditional automotive repair businesses. Key Project Strengths:  Indoor-only operations  No heavy automotive repair  No outdoor storage  Minimal environmental impact  Limited traffic burden  Professional franchise oversight  Enhanced property reinvestment  Expanded automotive, residential, and commercial service offerings  Site-specific signage and visibility solutions integrated into business planning By proactively addressing likely City staff and Planning Commission concerns regarding automotive operations, environmental protections, site appearance, signage, traffic, and long- term operational controls, this application demonstrates a highly compatible and responsible use for the property. For these reasons, the applicant respectfully requests approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Tint World Automotive Styling Center at 3761 Lexington Avenue North, Arden Hills, Minnesota. 3761 Lexington Avenue North – Off Street Parking Locations and Exterior Modifications N 6 Spaces, to be restriped 18 Spaces, to be restriped 6 Spaces Proposed gate for trash enclosure Proposed 2nd accessible parking space Customer: Location: File Name: TINT WORLD ARDEN HILLS, MN 532186 - R2 - ARDEN HILLS, MN Prepared By: Date: Project No.: 532186 Revision: 2 Request No.: 87621 This is an original document created by Persona Signs, LLC provided specifically to the client for the client’s personal use. This document should not be shared, reproduced, disclosed or otherwise used without written permission from Persona Signs, LLC. This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electric Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign. Customer Approval (Please Initial): Approval Date: EXISTING EST 4’ -0” X 6’ -0” MID RISE PROPOSED 1 1 CHANNEL LETTERS SHOWN ON EXISTING WALL COLOR OR AS NOTED ON ELEVATIONS. CUSTOMER TO VERIFY WALL COLOR PRIOR TO PRODUCTION 2/18/26 VC/PG 119.40299 MID RISE DETAIL SCALE: 3/8” = 1’-0” 4' - 0 " + / - + / - 4 ' - 0 " +/- 6'-0" TECHNICAL SURVEY REQUIRED PRIOR TO PRODUCTION TO CONFIRM MEASUREMENTS Customer: Location: File Name: TINT WORLD ARDEN HILLS, MN 532186 - R2 - ARDEN HILLS, MN Prepared By: Date: Project No.: 532186 Revision: 2 Request No.: 87621 This is an original document created by Persona Signs, LLC provided specifically to the client for the client’s personal use. This document should not be shared, reproduced, disclosed or otherwise used without written permission from Persona Signs, LLC. This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electric Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign. Customer Approval (Please Initial): Approval Date: EXISTING EST 30’ WIDE WALL PROPOSED 2 CHANNEL LETTERS SHOWN ON EXISTING WALL COLOR OR AS NOTED ON ELEVATIONS. CUSTOMER TO VERIFY WALL COLOR PRIOR TO PRODUCTION 03/08/26 VC/PG/VC 253.1645569620253 GRAPHIC DETAIL SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0” TECHNICAL SURVEY REQUIRED PRIOR TO PRODUCTION TO CONFIRM MEASUREMENTS RACEWAY COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING WALL COLOR 24 " 24 " 4’ - 3 1 5 / 1 6 ” 4’ - 2 1 1/ 1 6 ” 8’-11 1/4” 13’-2 13/16” 13’-5 7/16” 30'-0" PHOTO MAY NOT BE TO SCALE Customer: Location: File Name: TINT WORLD ARDEN HILLS, MN 532186 - R2 - ARDEN HILLS, MN Prepared By: Date: Project No.: 532186 Revision: 2 Request No.: 87621 This is an original document created by Persona Signs, LLC provided specifically to the client for the client’s personal use. This document should not be shared, reproduced, disclosed or otherwise used without written permission from Persona Signs, LLC. This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electric Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign. Customer Approval (Please Initial): Approval Date: EXISTING EST 20’ WIDE WALL PROPOSED 3 CHANNEL LETTERS SHOWN ON EXISTING WALL COLOR OR AS NOTED ON ELEVATIONS. CUSTOMER TO VERIFY WALL COLOR PRIOR TO PRODUCTION 03/08/26 VC/PG/VC 266.0753880266075 TECHNICAL SURVEY REQUIRED PRIOR TO PRODUCTION TO CONFIRM MEASUREMENTS 20'-0" GRAPHIC DETAIL SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0” RACEWAY COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING WALL COLOR 24 " 24 " 4’ - 3 1 5 / 1 6 ” 4’ - 2 1 1/ 1 6 ” 8’-11 1/4” 13’-2 13/16” 13’-5 7/16” PHOTO MAY NOT BE TO SCALE Customer: Location: File Name: TINT WORLD ARDEN HILLS, MN 532186 - R2 - ARDEN HILLS, MN Prepared By: Date: Project No.: 532186 Revision: 2 Request No.: 87621 This is an original document created by Persona Signs, LLC provided specifically to the client for the client’s personal use. This document should not be shared, reproduced, disclosed or otherwise used without written permission from Persona Signs, LLC. This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electric Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign. Customer Approval (Please Initial): Approval Date: EXISTING EST 20’ WIDE WALL PROPOSED 3 CHANNEL LETTERS SHOWN ON EXISTING WALL COLOR OR AS NOTED ON ELEVATIONS. CUSTOMER TO VERIFY WALL COLOR PRIOR TO PRODUCTION 03/08/26 VC 570.0712589073634 TECHNICAL SURVEY REQUIRED PRIOR TO PRODUCTION TO CONFIRM MEASUREMENTS GRAPHIC DETAIL SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0” RACEWAY COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING WALL COLOR 24 " 24 " 4’ - 3 1 5 / 1 6 ” 4’ - 2 1 1/ 1 6 ” 8’-11 1/4” 13’-2 13/16” 13’-5 7/16” 20'-0" Page 1 of 7 AGENDA ITEM – 3D MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 2026 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jake Reilly, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #26-011 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Ordinance Amendment Requested Action The Planning Commission should consider the information provided on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and hold a public hearing on the draft ordinance presented in Attachment A. Background In 2025, the City Council requested a work session agenda item to allow for discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). At the April 13, 2026, City Council work session the Council considered information related to permitting ADUs, including information from other metropolitan area municipalities related to permitting ADUs. That information is included in this memo. At the work session, the Council asked city staff to craft an ordinance that included the following provisions: A. Allow ADUs as an accessory use in residential districts. B. Prohibit units not attached to either the principal structure or an existing accessory garage. C. Allows not more than one ADU per residential lot. D. Maintains existing impervious surface coverage, setbacks, and other adopted provisions of the code related to dimensional standards. E. Requires that utilities be provided through the principal dwelling while also providing for a mechanism to ensure residents in either dwelling unit have independent understanding of their use of the utility. F. Prohibits the separate sale or subdivision of the secondary unit (ADU). G. Requires – to the extent possible - at least one of the dwelling units on the property to be occupied by a property owner. Page 2 of 7 Defining accessory dwelling units An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is a self-contained residential unit located on the same lot as a primary single-family or small multifamily home.1 Also known as carriage houses, in-law suites, granny flats, backyard cottages, basement apartments, or secondary dwelling units, ADUs include their own kitchen, bathroom, bedroom(s), and private entrance.2 AARP's Livable Communities program describes them as small homes that exist on the same property lot as a single-family residence and highlights that they come in many shapes and styles.3 ADUs may take several physical forms, each permissible to varying degrees depending on local zoning ordinances:4 • Internal/Conversion ADU: Space within the existing home converted to a separate unit (e.g., finished basement, attic, or interior room suite) • Attached ADU: An addition built onto the side or rear of the primary home with a separate entrance • Detached ADU: A freestanding structure in the backyard or built above a detached garage • Junior ADU: An internal ADU of no more than 500 square feet of floor area, defined and enabled by state law in some states, such as California What ADUs are NOT: ADUs are distinct from rooming houses, group homes, short-term vacation rentals, or duplex conversions that subdivide ownership. They remain secondary in scale to the primary dwelling, are owner-created and privately financed, and are not subsidized affordable housing developments. They are scattered throughout residential neighborhoods rather than concentrated in a single location.5 Reasons municipalities allow ADUs A. To address the regional housing need The Twin Cities metropolitan region must add nearly 13,000 units of housing annually through 2040 to meet anticipated workforce growth and demographic change.6 Vacancy rates for studio and one-bedroom units in the metro area hover around 2.1% and 2.3% respectively — far below the healthy threshold of 5% — creating intense cost pressure for renters.7 ADUs offer a market- rate mechanism to expand housing supply without public subsidy, expensive land acquisition, or large-scale rezoning.8 If ADUs in the seven-county metro area achieved the same prevalence as Portland, Oregon (approximately 1.5% of single-family homes), the region could produce an estimated 11,000 new housing units — potentially meeting most of the regional need for households earning $40,000– $50,000 per year.9 1 Family Housing Fund. "ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region." February 2019. fhfund.org/report/adu/ 2 American Planning Association. "PAS QuickNotes No. 19: Accessory Dwelling Units." 2009. planning.org/pas/quicknotes/ (accessed March 2026) 3 AARP Livable Communities. "All About Accessory Dwelling Units." aarp.org/livable-communities/housing/info- 2019/accessory-dwelling-units-adus/ (accessed March 2026). 4 APA (2009) 5 APA (2009). 6 Metropolitan Council. Thrive MSP 2040 Housing Policy Plan. July 2015, p. 9. 7 Marquette Advisors Apartment Trends, 1st Quarter 2018. 8 Family Housing Fund (2019). 9 Family Housing Fund (2019). Page 3 of 7 Nationally, ADUs remain rare despite growing interest. The AARP/APA survey of planning directors found that more than half of jurisdictions had fewer than 500 ADUs, and nearly three- quarters issued less than 5 percent of all residential permits for ADUs in a given year.10 Despite widespread policy adoption in Minnesota, actual production has lagged significantly, underscoring the importance of removing regulatory and financial barriers.11 B. To address affordability and cost burden Research consistently shows that the monthly housing costs for an ADU are affordable to households earning below $56,000 annually — within reach of many working families, young adults, and lower-income seniors.12 Because ADUs are built on existing lots using private capital, they add housing supply without the overhead costs associated with land purchase or public subsidy programs. The greatest demand over the next 20 years will be for units with mortgage or rent payments priced below $1,875/month (in 2019 dollars), a range in which ADUs typically fall.13 Homeowners who rent their ADUs benefit financially: rental income can offset mortgage costs and help lower-income homeowners remain stably housed over time. ADU construction is a significant upfront investment, however, ranging from $50,000 to more than $150,000 depending on type and scale.14 Financing mechanisms — including home equity lines of credit, ADU loan programs, and municipal fee waiver programs — are therefore critical enablers of homeowner participation.15 C. To offer more choices for aging in community and multi-generational living ADUs directly address the evolving demographic composition of American households. Four- fifths of projected household growth in the Twin Cities will be in households headed by individuals aged 65 and older, many seeking options to downsize in their own neighborhoods.16 ADUs allow older homeowners to move into an accessory unit, rent out the primary home, or house a caregiver nearby — supporting independent living without displacement from one's community.17 The AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey (November 2021) found that while only 4 percent of respondents had an ADU on their property, 26 percent of those without one said they would consider adding one if they had the space.18 AARP emphasizes that ADUs can help ensure that people of all ages, including older adults, have more options in where and how to live in their own communities.19 Multigenerational households — adult children, aging parents, and extended family members — are well-served by ADUs that allow independent living while maintaining family proximity. AARP's Livable Communities hub describes ADUs as family-friendly, flexible housing options that can serve changing household needs across multiple generations.20 10 APA ADU Survey of Planning Directors, October 2018. 11 HKGi. "ADU Research Summary: Accessory Dwelling Unit Guide for the Twin Cities Metro Area." 2019. 12 Family Housing Fund (2019). 13 Family Housing Fund (2019) and Metropolitan Council (2015). 14 Spevak and Stanton (2019), The ABCs of ADUs; and Grant et al. (2019), Accessory Dwelling Units: A Step-by-Step Guide. 15 Family Housing Fund (2019). 16 Metropolitan Council (2015). 17 Family Housing Fund (2019). 18 AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, November 2021 (Binette 2021). 19 AARP Public Policy Institute and American Planning Association. "Expanding ADU Development and Occupancy: Solutions for Removing Local Barriers to ADU Construction." 2023. aarp.org/pri/topics/livable- communities/housing/expanding-adu-development-solutions-local-barriers/. 20 AARP Livable Communities (2019). Page 4 of 7 Nearly half of the region's projected household growth will be individuals living alone, a segment for which ADUs are ideally sized. ADUs expand the range of housing types available in predominantly single-family neighborhoods without fundamentally altering neighborhood character or requiring major infrastructure investment.21 D. To capitalize on potential environmental and economic benefits ADUs are environmentally friendly housing options: they are smaller, use less energy than the average home, and can reduce transportation-related environmental impacts when located near employment centers and, where they exist, established public transit routes.22 ADUs also have the benefit of increasing net tax capacity as improved properties gain assessed value, resulting in the potential for additional property tax revenue and reducing the overall residential property tax burden. Because homeowners typically hire local construction and design firms to build ADUs, they support the local economy. New ADU residents also increase the customer base for nearby businesses and services, helping to create more vibrant neighborhoods.23 Potential concerns • Neighborhood character: Critics worry ADUs will change the look and feel of single- family areas. The American Planning Association notes that communities that have actually allowed ADUs find these concerns are "mostly unfounded or overstated."24 • Parking and traffic: Critics worry ADUs will add more cars to neighborhood streets. Oregon DEQ research found ADU residents have below-average vehicle ownership (less than one per household), and any on-street parking impact is dispersed rather than concentrated.25 • Infrastructure and utilities: Sewer and water capacity must be considered at the permitting stage. Most cities require connection to the existing home or utility main, and tiered fee structures can help manage utility costs equitably.26 • Owner-occupancy requirements: While some cities require on-site ownership to prevent speculative development, the APA recommends against these provisions, which constrain homeowner financing options and reduce production.27 • Construction costs: ADUs are significant investments ($50,000–$150,000+), and not all homeowners can finance them without assistance. Financial barriers must be addressed alongside regulatory reform.28 • Short-term rentals: Without explicit restrictions, ADUs may be converted to STR platforms rather than providing long-term housing. Several Minnesota cities (e.g., St. Louis Park) explicitly prohibit STR use in ADUs.29 Recommended best practices for municipal zoning reform The evidence from peer cities nationally and in Minnesota 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. AARP and APA research identifies four overlapping 21 Metropolitan Council (2015). 22 Stephan & Crawford, 2016, Energy 116(1), 1158–1171; and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), 2014, ADU residents in Portland survey. 23 Family Housing Fund (2019). 24 APA (2009). 25 Oregon DEQ (2014). 26 APA (2009) 27 AARP/APA (2023) 28 AARP/APA (2023) 29 HKGi (2019) Page 5 of 7 categories of barriers — political, regulatory, procedural, and financial — each of which must be systematically addressed for ADU programs to succeed. AARP and APA's collaborative work on ADU policy dates to 2000, when the AARP Public Policy Institute published a model state act and local ordinance drafted by APA staff. An updated ADU Model State Act and Local Ordinance (Attachment F) was released in 2021 and is available as a free resource for state and local elected officials. Staff used the model ordinance as a guide along side rules in other Minnesota municipalities to write the proposed ordinance. The following recommendations from the model ordinance are included in the attached draft: • Establishing an administrative review process • Allowing ADUs in all residential zoning districts • Setting flexible and reasonable design standards • Offering an opportunity for a reduction in some fees • Create a pathway to legalize existing unpermitted or grandfathered ADUs through a simple inspection and permitting process — expanding legal inventory and improving health and safety conditions. Twin Cities Metro ADU landscape As of 2019, at least 25 Twin Cities metro area communities had adopted ADU policies, including Apple Valley, Blaine, Bloomington, Burnsville, Crystal, Eagan, Fridley, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Long Lake, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Mounds View, Orono, Plymouth, Richfield, Roseville, Stillwater, Shoreview, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, Wayzata, and White Bear Lake. Minneapolis has the most permissive and active ADU program in the region, with approximately 120 units permitted and built, no minimum parking requirements, and no owner-occupancy requirement for attached or detached ADUs. Edina, Crystal, and St. Louis Park also adopted relatively flexible frameworks that allow all ADU types with minimal parking requirements.30 Despite broad policy adoption, actual ADU production remained limited across most metro cities. Many communities had zero or very few built units, reflecting the chilling effect of restrictive provisions such as large minimum lot sizes, mandatory owner occupancy, conditional use permit requirements, high parking standards, and small maximum size limits. Burnsville had zero ADUs built despite having a policy; Bloomington had one constructed; Apple Valley had two. Nationally, the APA survey found that more than 60 percent of jurisdictions explicitly permitted new ADUs in their zoning ordinance, yet only a quarter permitted at least one ADU by right on any conforming single-family lot. More than half of jurisdictions that permit ADUs still require owner-occupancy and minimum off-street parking — two of the most common production barriers identified in research.31 Roseville permits attached and internal ADUs in its Low Density Residential-1 district,. That district requires owner occupancy, limits ADU size to 650 square feet or 75% of the four-season living area, requires one additional off-street parking space, and caps occupancy at two people. As of 2019, five ADUs had been built with two more in process. Compared to Minneapolis, Edina, Crystal, and St. Louis Park, Roseville's prohibition on detached ADUs, owner-occupancy requirement, and restrictive size cap place it in the more conservative tier among metro-area cities. 30 Family Housing Fund (2019). 31 AARP/APA (2023). Page 6 of 7 Attachment B shows regulations adopted by a subset of Minnesota communities, current as of 2026. Most recently the City of Blaine published revised ordinance language removing detached ADUs as an allowed use and amended language permitting attached ADUs with standards.32 Draft ordinance Accessory dwelling units represent one of the most cost-effective, equitable, and community- compatible tools available to cities seeking to expand housing choice, address affordability pressures, and accommodate demographic change. The evidence from peer cities nationally and in Minnesota demonstrates that thoughtful, permissive ADU policies — supported by public information and financial assistance — can meaningfully increase housing production without public subsidy.33 To craft an ordinance appropriate for Arden Hills, City staff relied on the direction of City Council at the April 13, 2026, work session, the Model ADU ordinance crafted by AARP and the American Planning Association, and existing ordinance language from municipalities in Minnesota who have adopted ordinances permitting ADUs. In summary, the draft ordinance includes language to address the following elements common in ADU ordinances. • Location(s) within the city and/or specific zoning districts • Lot size • Number • Height • Number of occupants/residents • Parking • Entry requirements • Utility connection requirements • Landscaping, impervious surface and building coverage requirements • Independent sale of ADU • Permitted by Right, Permitted with Standards (PS), or Conditional (C) • Design standards (windows, roof pitch, exterior materials, orientation on the lot etc.) The City Attorney continues to evaluate the draft language. Therefore, two provisions are included as headings in the attached draft, and more complete language or relevant information needed to address those provisions will be provided for the Planning Commission review at the July 8, 2026, meeting: Section H. Owner Occupancy Requirement. The City Council requested a provision to ensure that at least one of the two units on the property be occupied by the property owner. While some communities have adopted this approach, the City Attorney continues to review the applicability and appropriateness of the provision specifically for the City of Arden Hills. Language contemplated for this section of the ordinance requires additional review by the city attorney to ensure that the ordinance can be appropriately and equitably applied subject to any applicable provisions in local, state, and federal law. Section N. Nonconforming and unpermitted ADUs. The ordinance must address those cases where an ADU has been built – for example, prior to the establishment of a zoning code for the City of Arden Hills; under the provisions of a prior 32 ORD 26-2601 Ordinance Approving Amendments to Residential Sections and Performance Standards (https://www.blainemn.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/3817) (accessed March 2026) 33 AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, November 2021 (Binette 2021). Page 7 of 7 version of the code; and/or without applying the appropriate entitlements process such as applying for and receiving necessary zoning and/or building permits. Language contemplated for this ordinance requires additional review by the city attorney to ensure that the ordinance can be appropriately and equitably applied subject to any applicable provisions in local, state, and federal law. Staff requests the Planning Commission provide any comments, questions, concerns or ideas related to the above provisions. These will be considered and passed on to the City Attorney in order to ensure the ordinance language meets the intent, purpose, and direction of the Planning Commission and the City Council, as appropriate and subject to applicable laws and regulations. While ADUs alone will not solve the region's housing crisis, or Arden Hills’ share of the need, they offer a proven, neighborhood-scale contribution to housing choice, supply, affordability, aging in community, and multigenerational living as part of a broader housing strategy. The benefits align with the city’s housing goals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as well as the newly adopted strategic plan. Attachments Attachment A: Draft ordinance language Amending Chapter 13, Sections 1305.04 and 1325. Attachment B: Table of Minnesota City ADU regulations (2026) Attachment C: Family Housing Fund Best Practices (2023) Attachment D: AARP model ADU ordinance Attachment E: AARP ABCs of ADUs ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 15 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXX CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13, ZONING CODE, SECTION 1325 GENERAL REGULATIONS AND 1305.04 DEFINITIONS OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE SECTION 1. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (the "City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes § 462.351 et seq. to adopt zoning ordinances and regulations that promote public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills finds that accessory dwelling units provide affordable housing options for residents of varying ages and income levels, allow homeowners to generate supplemental income, support aging in place, and facilitate family caregiving arrangements without altering the essential residential character of established neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills finds that authorizing accessory dwelling units in residential districts serves the public interest by expanding the supply of market-affordable housing, making efficient use of existing infrastructure, and accommodating the diverse housing needs of the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Arden Hills has determined that it is necessary and appropriate to amend Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to authorize and regulate accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts subject to clear and objective standards that protect neighborhood character while removing unnecessary barriers to their creation. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT This Ordinance is adopted to authorize, regulate, and promote accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as an accessory use to single-family dwellings in residential zoning districts within the City of Arden Hills. The specific purposes of this Ordinance are: To increase the supply of market-affordable rental housing within existing residential neighborhoods without requiring new infrastructure or significantly altering neighborhood character. To provide housing options that serve people of all ages, abilities, and income levels, including older adults who wish to age in place, family members providing or receiving care, and households seeking smaller, more affordable dwelling units. Page 2 of 15 To allow homeowners to generate supplemental income to offset rising homeownership costs. To make efficient use of the City's existing residential building stock and public infrastructure. To promote infill development consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals. SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS - For purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms have the meanings set forth below. All other terms used in this Ordinance carry the meanings established in other relevant chapters of the Arden Hills City Code. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) A residential living unit that is subordinate in size to a lawfully established single-family dwelling (the "principal dwelling") located on the same lot. An ADU provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more people, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An ADU shall have a separate entrance from the principal dwelling. For the purposes of this Ordinance, "ADU" includes only the types described in Section 4 of this Ordinance. ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT An ADU that is physically connected to the principal dwelling by a common wall, floor, or ceiling but has its own separate entrance and is a distinct, self-contained living unit. This includes additions to the principal dwelling constructed for the purpose of creating an ADU. GARAGE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT An ADU located within or above a legally established private accessory garage structure on the same lot as the principal dwelling. The garage ADU may be (i) within the footprint of an existing attached or detached garage, (ii) above an attached or detached garage, or (iii) within a new attached or detached garage structure built in combination with ADU space. A garage ADU is considered a type of detached or attached ADU depending on the configuration of the garage. INTERNAL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT An ADU that is entirely contained within the existing or expanded footprint of the principal dwelling. Examples include basement apartments, attic conversions, and additions constructed entirely within the building envelope of the principal dwelling. LIVING AREA The interior habitable floor area of a dwelling unit, including finished basements and finished attics used as habitable space, but excluding garages, unfinished storage areas, mechanical rooms, common hallways shared with the principal dwelling, and unfinished utility spaces. OWNER-OCCUPANT An individual who holds at least a 50 percent ownership interest in the property on which an ADU is located and who occupies either the principal dwelling or the ADU as their primary place of residence for a majority of calendar days in any year. Page 3 of 15 PRINCIPAL DWELLING The primary, lawfully established single-family detached dwelling located on the same lot as an ADU. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS The single-family residential zoning districts established in Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code, including but not limited to the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts, or any successor districts that authorize single-family detached dwellings as a permitted or conditional principal use. UTILITIES For the purposes of this Ordinance, utilities means the following services when provided to a dwelling unit: (i) wastewater/sanitary sewer service; (ii) potable (drinking) water service; (iii) electrical service; and (iv) natural gas service where available. UTILITY METER A device installed by or on behalf of a utility provider that individually measures consumption of water, electricity, wastewater (as applicable), or natural gas for a single dwelling unit. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR The individual or office designated by the City of Arden Hills to administer and enforce Chapter 13 of the City Code, including applications for ADU permits under this Ordinance. SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION AND APPLICABLILITY – Chapter 13 - Zoning Code, Section 1305.04 – Definitions is hereby amended by adding the underlined language as follows: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) A residential living unit that is subordinate in size to a lawfully established single-family dwelling (the "principal dwelling") located on the same lot. An ADU provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more people, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An ADU shall have a separate entrance from the principal dwelling. For the purposes of this Ordinance, "ADU" includes only the types described in Section 4 of this Ordinance. ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT An ADU that is physically connected to the principal dwelling by a common wall, floor, or ceiling but has its own separate entrance and is a distinct, self-contained living unit. This includes additions to the principal dwelling constructed for the purpose of creating an ADU. GARAGE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT An ADU located within or above a legally established private accessory garage structure on the same lot as the principal dwelling. The garage ADU may be (i) within the footprint of an existing attached or detached garage, (ii) above an attached or detached garage, or (iii) within a new attached or detached garage structure built Page 4 of 15 in combination with ADU space. A garage ADU is considered a type of detached or attached ADU depending on the configuration of the garage. INTERNAL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT An ADU that is entirely contained within the existing or expanded footprint of the principal dwelling. Examples include basement apartments, attic conversions, and additions constructed entirely within the building envelope of the principal dwelling. LIVING AREA The interior habitable floor area of a dwelling unit, including finished basements and finished attics used as habitable space, but excluding garages, unfinished storage areas, mechanical rooms, common hallways shared with the principal dwelling, and unfinished utility spaces. OWNER-OCCUPANT An individual who holds at least a 50 percent ownership interest in the property on which an ADU is located and who occupies either the principal dwelling or the ADU as their primary place of residence for a majority of calendar days in any year. Chapter 13 - Zoning Code, Section 1325.01 – Accessory Structures is hereby amended by adding the underlined and removing the strikeout language as follows: Subd. 2 Height A. R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts shall not exceed 25 feet in height or the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory, whichever is lower. All other accessory structures in the R-1, R-2, and R- 3 Districts shall not exceed fifteen feet in height or the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory, whichever is lower. Subd. 4 Size A. R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts. 1. Accessory structures associated with residential uses shall not exceed seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) eight hundred (800) square feet in floor area. Accessory structures associated with non-residential uses shall not exceed two thousand one hundred eighty-four (2,184) square feet in floor area; and, Subd. 9. Accessory Dwelling Units A. Where ADUs Are Allowed. Accessory dwelling units are hereby authorized as an accessory use to lawfully established single-family detached dwellings in all residential zoning districts of the City of Arden Hills, subject to the requirements of this Ordinance. B. Number of ADUs Per Lot. No more than one (1) ADU shall be located on any single lot. No combination of ADU types listed in Section 4 shall result in more than one ADU on a lot. Page 5 of 15 C. Relationship to Principal Dwelling. An ADU shall be clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling in size, use, and character. An ADU shall not be constructed on a lot that does not contain a lawfully established principal single-family dwelling, except that a building permit for an ADU may be applied for concurrently with a building permit for construction of a new principal dwelling on the same lot, provided both permits are issued before either structure is occupied. D. Exclusion of Certain Unit Types. The following dwelling arrangements are not ADUs for the purposes of this Ordinance and are governed by other applicable provisions of Chapter 13 of the City Code: boarder or roomer accommodations, bed-and-breakfast establishments, and any other dwelling type expressly regulated elsewhere in the City Code. E. Types of ADUs Authorized. Only the following types of ADUs are authorized under this Ordinance. No other type of detached standalone ADU (i.e., a freestanding structure unattached to the principal dwelling or an existing garage) is authorized. 1. Internal ADU. An internal ADU is an ADU created entirely within the existing or expanded footprint of the principal dwelling. Internal ADUs include, but are not limited to: a) Basement conversions, where an existing unfinished or finished basement is converted to create a separate living unit. b) Attic conversions, where an existing attic space is finished and converted to create a separate living unit. c) Interior conversions, where a portion of the existing above-grade living space of the principal dwelling is separated and converted into a self- contained unit. d) Additions that expand the footprint or building envelope of the principal dwelling for the purpose of creating an internal ADU, provided the addition is physically integrated with and structurally part of the principal dwelling. 2. Attached ADU. An attached ADU is an ADU created by an addition to the principal dwelling that shares at least one common wall, floor, or ceiling with the principal dwelling and is structurally part of the same building. An attached ADU has its own separate entrance that may be located on any facade of the combined structure. 3. Garage ADU. A garage ADU is an ADU located within, above, or as part of a private garage structure on the same lot as the principal dwelling. Authorized garage ADU configurations include: Page 6 of 15 a) Conversion of habitable space within an existing attached or detached garage. b) Construction of habitable space above an existing or new attached or detached garage. c) Construction of a new attached or detached garage structure that includes integrated ADU space above or within the garage footprint, provided the garage component retains space adequate for at least one (1) vehicle. A garage ADU shall not be a freestanding detached structure that functions solely as a dwelling unit. The ADU component of a garage structure shall be clearly accessory to and integrated with the garage use. F. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. All ADUs authorized under this Ordinance shall comply with the following development standards. Where a conflict exists between this Ordinance and another provision of Chapter 13 of the City Code, the more specific provision of this Ordinance shall control with respect to ADUs. 1. Minimum Lot Size. An ADU shall be located on a lot that meets the minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirements applicable to the zoning district in which the lot is located. An internal or attached ADU may be created on a lot that is lawfully nonconforming as to lot area or lot width, provided that the creation of the ADU does not increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to any dimensional standard. 2. ADU Floor Area. The living area of an ADU shall comply with all of the following standards: a) Minimum Floor Area. An ADU shall have a minimum living area of three hundred (300) square feet, provided all applicable building code requirements for habitable space are satisfied. b) Maximum Floor Area. The living area of an ADU shall not exceed the lesser of: i. Eight hundred (800) square feet of living area; or ii. Fifty percent (50%) of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling. iii. Exception for Small Principal Dwellings. Where the gross floor area of the principal dwelling is less than eight hundred (800) square feet, the maximum living area of the ADU shall be the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, provided all applicable setback, lot coverage, and other dimensional standards are met. 3. Setbacks. All ADUs shall comply with the following setback requirements: Page 7 of 15 ADU Type Front Setback Side Setback (Interior) Side Setback (Corner) Rear Setback Internal ADU Same as principal dwelling Same as principal dwelling Same as principal dwelling Same as principal dwelling Attached ADU Same as principal dwelling Same as principal dwelling Same as principal dwelling Same as principal dwelling Garage ADU (attached garage) Same as accessory structure Same as accessory structure Same as accessory structure Same as accessory structure Garage ADU (detached garage, ADU above) Same as accessory structure See Section 1325.01 Accessory Structures Same as accessory structure Same as accessory structure Notwithstanding the table above, where an existing nonconforming accessory structure is converted to a garage ADU, the height may be increased subject to the height limitations of this code, and no additional setback nonconformity shall be created as a result of the conversion, provided the structure's footprint is not expanded. 4. Height. The height of an ADU shall not exceed the height of the principal dwelling or twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is less. Height shall be measured consistent with the height measurement methodology established in Chapter 13 of the City Code. For a garage ADU located above a detached garage, the maximum structure height, including the garage and the ADU above, shall not exceed the height of the principal dwelling or twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is less. 5. Lot Coverage. The combined lot coverage of the principal dwelling, all accessory structures, and the ADU shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage permitted in the applicable residential zoning district under Chapter 13 of the City Code. Lot coverage shall be calculated as the percentage of the total lot area covered by all structures having a roof, as defined in Chapter 13. 6. Impervious Surface. Impervious surface coverage, including the ADU structure and any associated driveway, parking area, or hard surface area, shall not exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage permitted in the applicable zoning district or by any applicable watershed district, county, or state requirement. No additional impervious surface shall be created solely to serve the ADU unless the total impervious surface remains within the applicable maximum. Page 8 of 15 7. Parking. One (1) additional off-street parking space shall be provided on the lot for the ADU, in addition to the off-street parking spaces required for the principal dwelling by Chapter 13 of the City Code. The additional parking space required for the ADU shall be located on the subject lot. The parking space shall be of adequate size and surface material as required by Chapter 13. No separate curb cut or driveway access from a public street shall be created solely to serve the ADU if the lot already has an existing driveway and curb cut. An existing driveway may be widened or extended to accommodate the ADU parking space, provided all applicable driveway and impervious surface standards are met. 8. Architectural Compatibility and Design. An ADU shall be architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling on the same lot and with the prevailing character of surrounding residential structures. The following design standards apply: a. Exterior Materials. The exterior wall and roof materials of an ADU, or of any addition or accessory structure constructed to house an ADU, shall match or be substantially similar to the exterior materials of the principal dwelling. Dissimilar materials that are of equal or superior quality may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon a finding that the materials are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. b. Roof Form. The roof pitch and form of an attached ADU or garage ADU addition shall be compatible with the roof form of the principal dwelling. c. Windows and Fenestration. Windows on an ADU shall be compatible in style and proportion with those of the principal dwelling. d. Exterior Stairways. Exterior stairways are not permitted. e. No Separate Design Standards. The City shall not impose separate architectural design standards or design review requirements on ADUs beyond those set forth in Section 5.8 and those generally applicable to residential structures in the zoning district. 9. Entrance Placement a. An ADU shall have at least one entrance that is separate from the entrance(s) to the principal dwelling. b. The separate entrance to the ADU shall not be required to face the public street. The separate entrance may be located on any facade of the structure, Page 9 of 15 including the side or rear, subject to compliance with applicable building code egress requirements. c. No additional entrance facing the public street shall be added to the principal dwelling solely for the purpose of providing access to the ADU, if such entrance would not have been permitted on the principal dwelling in the absence of the ADU. 10. Landscaping and Screening. The City shall not impose landscaping or screening requirements on an ADU beyond those generally applicable to the principal dwelling and other accessory structures in the zoning district. Landscaping disturbed during construction of an ADU or related addition shall be restored to substantially the pre-construction condition upon completion of construction. G. UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND METERING 1. Utility Connection Through the Principal Dwelling. All utilities serving an ADU shall be connected through or from the utility service connections already established for the principal dwelling on the same lot. No separate, independent utility service lateral from the public right-of-way or from a utility main to the ADU shall be permitted. This requirement applies to the following utilities: a. Wastewater and sanitary sewer service; b. Potable (drinking) water service; c. Electrical service; and d. Natural gas service, where available and where the ADU is served by natural gas. 2. Separate Utility Meters Required. Notwithstanding the requirement in Section G.1 that utilities be connected through the principal dwelling's existing service connections, each of the following utilities serving the ADU shall be individually metered by a separate utility meter dedicated to the ADU: a. Electrical service: a separate electrical meter shall be installed for the ADU; b. Natural gas service: where natural gas is provided to the ADU, a separate gas meter shall be installed for the ADU; c. Potable water service: a separate water meter shall be installed for the ADU; and Wastewater service: where individual metering of wastewater is required by the applicable sanitary sewer authority or utility provider, a separate wastewater meter or sub-meter shall be installed for the ADU. Page 10 of 15 3. Meter Installation and Approval. Separate utility meters shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable utility provider and the Minnesota State Building Code. The location and configuration of separate meters shall be subject to approval by the applicable utility provider. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to override the requirements of any utility provider with respect to meter installation, safety, or service. 4. Adequacy of Existing Connections. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the existing utility service connections for the principal dwelling are of adequate capacity to serve both the principal dwelling and the ADU. Where existing connections are inadequate, the applicant shall upgrade the connections at the applicant's expense to the point of connection at the public main or right-of-way before the ADU building permit may be issued. 5. No Requirement for New Lateral Service. The City shall not require the installation of a new, separate utility service lateral from the public right-of-way or utility main directly to the ADU as a condition of approving an ADU permit, provided the requirements of Sections 6.1 through 6.4 are satisfied. H. OWNER-OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION AND ADDITIONAL CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW I. PROHIBITION ON SEPARATE SALE OR SUBDIVISION 1. An ADU authorized under this Ordinance shall not be sold, conveyed, transferred, or otherwise disposed of as a unit separate from the principal dwelling. An ADU shall not be subdivided or platted as a separate lot or parcel. An ADU shall not be registered or conveyed as a condominium unit independent of the principal dwelling. 2. The prohibition on separate sale applies to all forms of ownership separation, including but not limited to fee simple subdivision, condominium registration, cooperative ownership structures, or any other arrangement that would result in the ADU being owned or held independently of the principal dwelling. 3. This prohibition shall be memorialized in the deed restriction required under Section H.3 and shall run with the land. J. BUILDING CODE AND LIFE SAFETY 1. State Building Code Compliance. All ADUs shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Minnesota State Building Code (Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1300 et seq.) and all amendments thereto, as adopted and enforced by the City of Arden Page 11 of 15 Hills. All applicable building permit(s) shall be obtained for all ADU construction, conversion, or alteration work prior to commencement of such work. 2. Habitable Space Standards. The living area of an ADU shall comply with the requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code and applicable residential building code standards for habitable rooms, including minimum room dimensions, ceiling heights, light, ventilation, and sanitation. The City shall allow reasonable flexibility in applying ceiling height and stairway standards to conversions of existing basement, attic, or garage space, consistent with the Minnesota State Building Code, in order to facilitate ADU creation in existing structures. 3. Conversion of Existing Nonhabitable Space. An existing nonhabitable space that is lawfully permitted as a nonhabitable use (such as a basement, attic, or garage) may be converted to habitable use for an ADU without being required to meet current structural standards applicable to new construction, to the extent permitted under the Minnesota State Building Code, provided: a. The existing structure was lawfully constructed under the building code in effect at the time of its construction; b. The conversion complies with all current life-safety requirements, including egress, fire separation, smoke and carbon monoxide detection, and electrical safety; and c. The structure does not pose a present threat to the health or safety of occupants. The Building Official shall have authority to apply building code standards in a manner that facilitates conversion of existing space to ADU use while ensuring compliance with current life-safety requirements. 4. Fire Separation. Where the ADU is located within the same building as the principal dwelling, fire separation between the ADU and the principal dwelling shall be provided as required by the Minnesota State Building Code for the applicable occupancy classification and construction type. 5. Emergency Vehicle Access. The location and configuration of an ADU shall not obstruct fire or emergency vehicle access to the principal dwelling or to the ADU itself. An ADU application may be denied where the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the City's fire official, determines that emergency vehicle access to the site would be materially impaired. K. APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES Page 12 of 15 1. Required Applications and Approvals. The creation of an ADU requires the following approvals, which shall be applied for and obtained in the sequence described below: a. Site Plan Review. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a completed Site Plan Review application to the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review the application for compliance with this Ordinance and Chapter 13 of the City Code. The Zoning Administrator shall approve or deny the site plan application within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of a complete application. b. Building Permit. Following approval of the site plan, the applicant shall obtain a building permit from the City's building official. The building permit shall not be issued until the site plan has been approved. The building official shall review the building permit application for compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and applicable life-safety codes. c. Rental Registration. If the ADU or the principal dwelling will be occupied by tenants, the property owner shall obtain a rental registration in accordance with applicable City Code provisions before a certificate of occupancy is issued. d. Administrative Review — No Public Hearing Required. The Zoning Administrator shall review and act on ADU site plan applications as a ministerial, administrative matter. No public notice, public hearing, conditional use permit, special use permit, or variance from the standards of this Ordinance shall be required for an ADU that complies with all requirements of this Ordinance. Neighbor notification shall not be required as a condition of ADU approval under this Ordinance. 2. Application Contents. A complete application shall include: a. A completed City application form signed by the property owner; b. A current certificate of survey or site plan drawn to scale showing: the lot boundaries and dimensions; the location, footprint, and dimensions of all existing structures; the proposed location, footprint, and dimensions of the ADU or the addition creating the ADU; all required setbacks; proposed parking spaces for both the principal dwelling and the ADU; and impervious surface calculations; c. Preliminary floor plans for the ADU showing proposed room layout, dimensions, entrances, egress windows or doors, and utility meter locations; d. Exterior elevation drawings showing the proposed appearance of any addition, new construction, or exterior alteration associated with the ADU; Page 13 of 15 e. Documentation of existing utility service connections and a description of proposed utility connections and metering as required by Section 6 of this Ordinance; and f. Proof of current property ownership in the form of a recorded deed or equivalent Ramsey County record. 3. Appeal. An applicant who is aggrieved by a denial of an ADU site plan application by the Zoning Administrator may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (or equivalent body established by the City of Arden Hills), in accordance with the appeal procedures set forth in Chapter 13 of the City Code. The appeal shall be limited to a determination of whether the Zoning Administrator's decision complies with the standards of this Ordinance and applicable provisions of Chapter 13. L. FEES. 1. The City Council shall establish, and may from time to time amend, a schedule of fees applicable to ADU zoning certificate applications, building permit applications, and rental license applications. Fees shall be established in the City's adopted fee schedule and shall reflect the reasonable costs of processing, review, and administration. 2. The City shall not impose connection fees, capacity charges, or system access charges for utilities on an ADU as if it were a new, independent residential use, where the ADU is connected through the existing utility service connections of the principal dwelling as required by Section 6 of this Ordinance. Utility providers may impose service or meter installation fees as required by their applicable tariffs or rate schedules, independent of the City's zoning and permitting fees. 3. The City Council may, by resolution, waive or reduce ADU application fees as an incentive to encourage the construction of ADUs that meet affordability, accessibility, or sustainability goals identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan or Housing Plan. M. PROHIBITED USES AND INAPPLICABLE RESTRICTIONS 1. Restrictions Not Applicable to ADUs. The following restrictions, which may apply to other types of uses or structures, shall not be imposed on ADUs authorized under this Ordinance: a. Restrictions based on the age of the principal dwelling; b. Restrictions based on the size of the principal dwelling (other than the maximum floor area ratio established in Section E.2); Page 14 of 15 c. Restrictions on the number, age, relationship, or physical condition of persons who may reside in the ADU; d. Annual renewal or monitoring requirements for the ADU permit; e. Requirements for the owner to reside in the ADU itself (as opposed to either the ADU or the principal dwelling as provided in Section G.1); f. Requirements for conditional use permit or special exception review for ADUs that comply with the objective standards of this Ordinance; and g. Density limitations that would otherwise prohibit an ADU on a lot that meets the minimum standards of this Ordinance. N. NONCONFORMING AND UNPERMITTED ADUs 1. Previously Unpermitted ADUs. 2. Existing ADUs lawfully permitted prior to 1980. THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION AND ADDITIONAL CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW O. ENFORCEMENT 1. The Zoning Administrator and the Building Official shall have authority to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance in accordance with the enforcement procedures established in Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code and applicable Minnesota law. 2. A violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor under Minnesota Statutes § 462.362, unless a different penalty is prescribed by applicable law. In addition to criminal penalties, the City may seek civil enforcement through an action in Ramsey County District Court for injunctive relief, abatement, or other appropriate civil remedy. 3. The City shall investigate complaints regarding violations of this Ordinance. Code enforcement shall not rely solely on complaints but shall also include periodic administrative review of properties for which ADU permits have been issued to verify continued compliance with the owner-occupancy requirement of Section 7. P. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW, AMENDMENTS, AND SEVERABILITY 1. Consistency with State Law. This Ordinance shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 and any other applicable state law governing the regulation of accessory dwelling units. To the extent any provision of this Ordinance conflicts with applicable state law, state law shall control. 2. Amendments. The City Council may amend this Ordinance from time to time in accordance with the amendment procedures set forth in Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills Page 15 of 15 City Code and applicable Minnesota law. Amendments that impose additional restrictions on ADUs shall not apply to ADUs for which a complete building permit application was submitted prior to the effective date of the amendment, unless the application is subsequently withdrawn. 3. Severability. If any section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. A Summary of this Ordinance will be published in accordance with state statute. PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 20XX, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk City Basic Demographics Approval Process Allowed Types Setback Regulations Size Rental regulations Parking Standard How Address Assigned Utilities Additional Requirements Additional Setback Standards Additional standards for detached ADUs Max Height Blaine Total Population - 75,933 Total Households - 27,012 % rental - % owner-occupied - 85.3% Administrative permit Attached Same as living spaces setbacks 50% of the finished square footage of the primary residence or 960 square feet, whichever is less (1200 square feet in other districts) Owner occupancy requirement, license required for one to be rented 3 for house and accessory dwelling (driveway in front of garage does not count) Must use the same as the principal structure Architectural standards, shall not have more than 1 door on the front house façade Falcon Heights (drafted, not adopted) Total Population - 5,581 Total Households - 2,362 % rental - % owner-occupied - 57.4% Attached, Internal, Detached Principal structure 250 square feet-70% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling four-season living area, up to 1,000 square feet Rental housing license required Unique address (Unit A) 1 per lot, must remain in common ownership, only one rental-housing license can be issued per lot shall not occupy more than 40% of the area of a required rear yard two bedrooms max 25 feet for ADU Gem Lake Total Population - 542 Total Households - 200 % rental - % owner-occupied - 87.1% Attached or detached housing for domestic servants; the keeping of not more than 2 roomers Lauderdale Total Population - 2,427 Total Households - 1,261 % rental - % owner-occupied - 53.4% Not specified Little Canada Total Population - 10,701 Total Households - 4,704 % rental - % owner-occupied - 68.4% By right Attached, Internal, Detached Detached - Accessory Structures Detached accessory building standards apply Rental housing license required 1 per unit May be assigned separate addresses Must use the same as the principal structure 1 per lot, must remain in common ownership, only one rental-housing license can be issued per lot Mounds View Total Population - 12,991 Total Households - 5,193 % rental - % owner-occupied - 69.3% By right Internal - shall not require any exterior modifications excluding windows and doors 300-area not to exceed the area of the floor above or below ADUs shall be licensed as a rental dwelling ADUs with a separate exterior entrance shall have a different address Must use the same as the principal structure, responsible for additional quarterly utility fees upon creation 1 per lot, owner must occupy principal or ADU, property shall be homesteaded New Brighton Total Population - 24,440 Total Households - 10,019 % rental - % owner-occupied - 61.2% Annual registration Attached, Internal, Detached Side and rear must follow zoning rules for property less than the main house or 1,064 square feet, whichever is smaller. SUP required for larger Yes, long term rental No, short term rental 1 additional parking space Same address Shared utilities 1 per lot, owner must occupy principal or ADU, must remain in common ownership Must be at least 10 feet away from main house if detached Cannot be taller than the main house Ramsey County City Basic Demographics Approval Process Allowed Types Setback Regulations Size Rental regulations Parking Standard How Address Assigned Utilities Additional Requirements Additional Setback Standards Additional standards for detached ADUs Max Height North St. Paul Total Population - 13,001 Total Households - 5,113 % rental - % owner-occupied - 68.2% Attached, Detached 10 ft for detached 300-900 (considering max 40% of main house for attached and 1,000 sq ft for detached) 1 per lot (considering utility connections details, ownership requirements) Shall have a separate entrance Roseville Total Population - 36,305 Total Households - 16,186 % rental - % owner-occupied - 66.4% Permitted with standards, ADU occupancy permit requires noticing of properties within 100 feet - comments can be submitted within 7 days, City may impose related conditions Attached, Detached Principal structure 300 up to 650, not to exceed 75% of the principal dwelling's four season living area, 1 bedroom maximum Owner occupancy requirement, same ownership, ADU occupancy permit required to rent an ADI if other than family, also rental registration required 1 additional parking space above and beyond the number of parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit Unique address max occupancy 2 people home occupation permitted in ADU subject to standards The entryway to a detached ADU shall be connected to a street frontage with a paved walkway. Saint Anthony Total Population - 9,956 Total Households - 4,475 % rental - % owner-occupied - 59.8% Detached prohibited - Detached accessory buildings shall be prohibited from containing complete independent living facilities (accessory dwelling units), which Shoreview Total Population - 27,616 Total Households - 11,826 % rental - % owner-occupied - 80.2% Permit Internal (Accessory Apartment) Principal structure Not more than 30% of the building or 800 square feet, 500+ square feet (principal to maintain at least 850 square feet) Lot to have a minimum of three off- street parking spaces, two to be enclosed Same address Shared utilities 1 per lot, owner must occupy the house No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit Spring Lake Park Total Population - 7,796 Total Households - 3,079 % rental - % owner-occupied - 69.4% Not specified White Bear Lake Total Population - 24,372 Total Households - 10,437 % rental - % owner-occupied - 67.8% Attached Internal Detached 200 square feet for 1 person + 100 per person. Not to exceed 880 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less Owner occupancy required No additional required Shared utilities household size for principal and ADU not to exceed number permitted per household plus 2 adults, deed restriction City Basic Demographics Approval Process Allowed Types Setback Regulations Size Rental regulations Parking Standard How Address Assigned Utilities Additional Requirements Additional Setback Standards Additional standards for detached ADUs Max Height Apple Valley Total Population - 56,631 Total Households - 22,081 % rental - % owner-occupied - 73.4% CUP Attached, Internal 300 square feet - 40% of main home's footprint No short term rental 2 in addition to principal structure spaces Must use the same as principal structure Must demonstrate that the accessory unit will not have an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties and not substantially alter the character of the neighborhood. Bloomington Total Population - 91,975 Total Households - 39,893 % rental - % owner-occupied - 65.7% Administrative Attached, Internal, Detached Principal Structure Setbacks 300-1000 square feet Rental license required principal must have 4 Separate from principal structure 1 per lot A detached accessory dwelling unit will count toward the maximum number of detached accessory structures allowed on a lot Burnsville Total Population - 65,696 Total Households - 26,551 % rental - % owner-occupied - 64.7% Permitted Attached, Internal, Detached Attached - Principal Structure, Detached - Accessory Structure 300-960 square feet or 33% of home footprint Rental license required 1 in addition to principal structure spaces Same Address Must use the same as principal structure 1 per lot, owner must live in principal or ADU Shall not count towards the max number of accessory buildings allowed on a property Crystal Total Population - 23,092 Total Households - 9,456 % rental - % owner-occupied - 76.9% Permitted, Zoning Certificate Required Attached, Internal, Detached <50% of primary home area May be rented 1 in addition to principal structure spaces ADU is unit B Must use the same as principal structure setback 5 feet from principal building Minimum of 10 feet from principal structure 22 feet Eagan Total Population - 69,273 Total Households - 28,766 % rental - % owner-occupied - 67.7% Annual Registration Attached, Internal 300-960 square feet or 33% of home footprint, max two bedrooms, max two occupants 2 in addition to principal structure spaces Must use the same as principal structure 1 per lot, owner must live in principal or ADU, same ownership An ADU may be created by the conversion of living space within the primary residence, but not by conversion of garage Designed and maintained as to be consistent with the primary residence Golden Valley Total Population - 22,214 Total Households - 9,887 % rental - % owner-occupied - 70.7% Administrative review, Conditional Use Permit for detached if does not meet same side and rear setbacks as principal Attached, Internal, Detached Principal Structure Setbacks 250-950 Square feet or 35% of home's gross living area (whichever is less) Rental license required 1 in addition to principal structure spaces Must use the same as principal structure Entrance to face side or rear yard, rooftop deck not allowed, 1 per lot, owner to reside in one of the dwellings Completely 12 ft to the rear of principal structure, minimum lot size of 10,000 sq ft, located no less than 10 ft from side or rear lot line, located no less than 10 feet from principal structure 12 feet Other Metro Area Communities City Basic Demographics Approval Process Allowed Types Setback Regulations Size Rental regulations Parking Standard How Address Assigned Utilities Additional Requirements Additional Setback Standards Additional standards for detached ADUs Max Height Hopkins Total Population - 18,532 Total Households - 9,097 % rental - % owner-occupied - 36.5% Permitted Attached, Detached Accessory Structure <800 square feet Short term Rental prohibited No additional parking required Must use the same as principal structure Entrances not to face nearest side or rear lot line. Detached is referred to as "backyard cottage" and attached is "secondary suite" 10 ft min front setback, 3 ft min side and rear setback (same as accessory structure) Minimum distance from principal - 15 feet Inver Grove Heights Total Population - 36,596 Total Households - 14.948 % rental - % owner-occupied - 76.9% City Registration Attached, Internal, Detached 250-1000 square feet Rental license required 2 in addition to principal structure spaces Detached has separate address Must use the same as principal structure Occupants shall not exceed three people Lakeville Total Population - 76,746 Total Households - 26,631 % rental - % owner-occupied - 87.8% City Administrative Zoning Permit Attached, Internal Principal Structure Setbacks <30% principal structure area Permitted 3 garage stalls for ADU and Principal Same Address Must use the same as principal structure no more than 2 bedrooms and no more than 4 unrelated persons Long Lake Total Population - 1,845 Total Households - 812 % rental - % owner-occupied - 74.5% Conditional Use Permit Principal Structure Setbacks <900 square feet Only to related individuals 2 in addition to principal structure spaces Same address Same ownership must be double the size of the standard lot Minneapolis Total Population - 435,233 Total Households - 197,053 % rental - % owner-occupied - 47.7% Administrative - Filing a covenant with County, must be submitted to zoning administrator for building permit Attached, Internal, Detached Specific for detached All > 300 square feet. Internal < 800 square feet. Detached < 1,300 square feet and footprint not to exceed 676 square feet or 10% of lot Owner occupancy required No additional parking required Must use the same as principal structure Internal - Shall be located on 1 level, no additional entrances facing the public street Side and rear yard may be reduced to 3 feet Minimum 10 feet from principal structure 21 feet Minnetonka Total Population - 56,162 Total Households - 25,240 % rental - % owner-occupied - 71.6% Conditional Use Permit for internal or attached, Variance + CUP for detached Attached, Internal, Detached Principal Structure Setbacks 1000 square feet max or 35% of the gross living area of home, two bedrooms max must be adequate Must use the same as principal structure Front 35 feet, side min 10 feet, rear 20% lot depth or 40 feet, whichever is less Ramsey Total Population - 29,143 Total Households - 10,401 % rental - % owner-occupied - 85% Permitted use, CUP required for conversion of lawful nonconforming garage Attached, Detached detached - principal dwelling setbacks < 800 square feet Owner occupancy required No additional parking required Must retain same address Must use the same as principal structure Must have permanent foundation. ADUs contain complete independent living facilities with 3 or more of the following - living, sleeping, eating, sanitation 22 feet City Basic Demographics Approval Process Allowed Types Setback Regulations Size Rental regulations Parking Standard How Address Assigned Utilities Additional Requirements Additional Setback Standards Additional standards for detached ADUs Max Height Richfield Total Population - 38,482 Total Households - 16,916 % rental - % owner-occupied - 61.6% Permitted Attached, Internal, Detached Attached - Principal Structure, Detached - Accessory Structure 300-800 square feet or the gross area of the home (whichever is less) Rental license required A minimum of three off-street parking spaces is required in order to add an accessory dwelling unit of any kind Must use the same as principal structure Conversion of garage space to an accessory dwelling unit is prohibited unless the garage space is replaced. Space within a garage that exceeds what is necessary for two vehicles may be 18 feet or height of the principal structure St Louis Park Total Population - 49,321 Total Households - 24,667 % rental - % owner-occupied - 57.8% Administrative review Attached, Internal, Detached Accessory Structure Detached < 800 sq ft or 25% of back yard. Attached < 40% of gross living area. All > 200 sq ft STR prohibited A garage conversion to an ADU cannot happen unless the required parking for the single-family home can be located in a structure or behind the front face May be separate Rooftop deck no allowed, permanent foundation is required, Unit must be lockable and not have direct access to the principal living space Side yard or Back yard only, Located minimum 15 feet from rear lot line, Located a minimum of 5 ft from 15 feet Wayzata Total Population - 4,589 Total Households - 2,242 % rental - % owner-occupied - 59.1% Permitted Use, CUP Attached, Internal, Detached new detached - principal structure conversion - accessory structure 300-960 square feet or 33% of home footprint owner occupancy required, 1 can be rented with license 1 in addition to principal structure spaces 10 foot setback Prepared by ECONorthwest for Family Housing Fund & NeighborWorks Home Partners NOVEMBER 2023 Best Practices in Dwelling Unit Production Advancing Accessory FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE TWIN CITIES Illuminating solutions. Sparking change. FHFUND.ORG Illuminating solutions. Sparking change. FHFUND.ORG 2 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Building Equity in Small Multifamily Ownership: Year 1 Progress Update | April 2022FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ECONorthwest, Accessory Dwelling Strategies LLC, and Orange Splot LLC prepared this report for Family Housing Fund and NeighborWorks Home Partners. The project team is grateful to the community stakeholders, jurisdictional partners, and other persons and organizations who participated and provided feedback to guide this project. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS • AARP Minnesota • City of Minneapolis • Christopher Strom Architects • Dayton’s Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services • Edina Realty • Metropolitan Council • Minnesota Homeownership Center •Minnesota Housing Finance Agency • YardHomes CLIENT TEAM • Beth Hyser, Chief Program Officer, NeighborWorks Home Partners • Kirstin Burch, Program Director, Family Housing Fund PROJECT CONSULTING TEAM • ECONorthwest (lead) • Tyler Bump, Project Director • Brittany Bagent, Senior Project Manager • Amanda Ufheil-Somers, Research Analyst • Accessory Dwelling Strategies LLC • Kol Peterson Orange Splot LLC • Eli Spevak INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................3 Benefits of ADUS ...............................................................................................................4 LANDSCAPE SCAN AND BEST PRACTICES ............................................................6 Regulatory Shifts to Support ADU Production .......................................................................6 Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................................8 Coalitions .........................................................................................................................................9 Outreach .............................................................................................................................9 Policy and Legislation .........................................................................................................9 Financing and Development Patterns...........................................................................................10 Addressing Financing Barriers .......................................................................................................11 Potential to Provide Afforable Housing ........................................................................................12 Navigator Models Throughout the Nation ...................................................................................13 LOCAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE TWIN CITIES ..................................................................14 Challenges ......................................................................................................................................14 Opportunities ................................................................................................................................15 AN ADU NAVIGATOR FOR THE TWIN CITIES ......................................................16 END NOTES ...................................................................................................................17 3 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Building Equity in Small Multifamily Ownership: Year 1 Progress Update | April 2022FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 INTRODUCTION Like many regions across the country, the Twin Cities are facing a severe housing inventory shortage. One strategy to address the shortage that has recently gained interest and support is developing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Small houses or apartments that exist on the same property lot as a single-family residence are referred to as ADUs. Sometimes known as accessory apartments, secondary units, carriage homes, alley houses, mother-in-law suites, or granny flats, ADUs provide more housing options in existing neighborhoods by allowing homeowners to build additional units on their lots. ADU is a catch-all term for all these situations—whether the unit is attached to an existing home, carved out of a larger home, or placed elsewhere on the property, such as over a detached garage or as a stand-alone structure in the back or side yard. NeighborWorks Home Partners and Family Housing Fund have examined ADUs in recent years to understand and amplify their potential for helping Twin Cities communities meet their housing needs. While many municipalities in the Twin Cities region have changed zoning code to allow ADUs in recent years, ADU uptake has been slow. Together, NeighborWorks and FHFund contracted ECONorthwest to investigate the opportunities and challenges to building ADUs in the Twin Cities. This report introduces the benefits of ADUs, explores national best practices in supporting permitting and development of ADUs, explores navigator models, and summarizes findings from local focus group meetings to determine the structure and feasibility of a navigator model for the Twin Cities region. FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 4 Benefits of Accessory Dwelling Units ADUs have been around for many years (as seen in historical homes and neighborhoods) but their construction declined in the mid-twentieth century for a variety of reasons. Changing preferences and restrictive land use regulations reduced housing flexibility and limited the availability of housing options for diverse needs. For example, ADU housing was common in Chicago during the first half of the 20th century and then ADU construction diminished beginning in 1957 after the adoption of a zoning ordinance necessitating parking and prohibiting secondary residential structures on residential lots.1 Now, many of the nation’s ADUs can be found in older neighborhoods and in communities where regulations have been updated to allow for more housing diversity. Many communities support the development of new ADUs to increase housing choice, discreetly house more residents within existing neighborhoods, decrease housing costs for owners and renters, and accommodate multigenerational living (See Exhibit 1 on next page). ADUs offer additional options for smaller households. The smaller size of ADUs provides a lower-maintenance housing option particularly suited for older adults.2 ADUs can be a source of added income for homeowners to help pay housing expenses. ADUs can blend into single-family neighborhoods. Many communities have vast areas with single-family residential uses which can accommodate ADUs. Pairings of primary dwellings and ADUs can meet the needs of multigenerational households. An AARP study found that during the pandemic, economic pressures influenced families to embrace multigenerational living to facilitate their ability to focus on survival, support, and recovery. Others found that multigenerational living supported feelings of love, connection, support, and care during the pandemic.3 PRIMARY HOUSEOCCUPANTS YEARS 0-3 YEARS 4-20 YEARS 21-25 YEARS 26-30 YEARS 31+ SECOND UNITOCCUPANTS Homeowners are supported financially while providingaffordable housing for their adult kids. The second unit is fully paid and the homeowner are able to support their aging parents. One of the adult kids of the homeowners moves into the primary house with their partner and kids. Second unit is built.Homeowners have kids. Homeowners save money to build a second unit. While building a careerafter college, the homeown-ers’ children replace local renters in the unit to benefit from its affordability while supporting household income. The homeowners’ elderly parents move-in to save on senior care costs. Homeowners move into the second unit and are able to share life with their children and grandchildren. Second unit is rented to local renters. Homeowners use rent to pay extra expenses and some of second unit building costs. There is no second unit on the lot. FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 5 EXHIBIT 1. EXAMPLE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANTS Source: West Denver Single Family Plus Initiative 6 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Building Equity in Small Multifamily Ownership: Year 1 Progress Update | April 2022FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 LANDSCAPE SCAN AND BEST PRACTICES Reducing regulatory barriers is the first and most important factor for achieving higher levels of ADU adoption and production. In a survey of ADU owners in three Pacific Northwest metro areas, the largest proportion of respondents (35 percent) said zoning changes were the determining factor for their decision to build an ADU.4 Although removing regulatory barriers does not guarantee that ADUs will be built, evidence from cities like Los Angeles shows that code and process changes alone can substantially increase ADU production.5 The successful adoption of ADUs in many jurisdictions along the West Coast indicates that removing code and permitting barriers is a prerequisite to fostering ADUs. ABOUT THIS ANALYSIS This report draws on insight from ADU experts, prior work done by ECONorthwest, and new research to review policies and practices in the cities and states that have produced the most ADUs in recent years. These jurisdictions—concentrated in West Coast states and Vancouver, B.C.—offer lessons on regulatory changes, planning tools, and actions that can support the accessibility and feasibility of ADU construction to homeowners and developers. REGULATORY SHIFTS TO SUPPORT ADU PRODUCTION ALLOWING ADUS BY RIGHT Clear and objective standards should apply to ADUs so they can be approved directly by municipal planning staff. When ADUs are allowed “by right,” applications are reviewed for compliance with the zoning, planning, and building code. Permitting ADUs through conditional or discretionary review requires a more extensive and costly permitting process involving a planning commission, uncertainty for the applicant, and potential for time-consuming appeals. Generally, conditional approvals should be targeted only for uses that have special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding community cannot be determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular property. ADUs are house-scale buildings that are fully compatible with detached homes and should not require special conditional use review. Similarly, design standards for areas outside historic preservation sites should be as clear and objective as possible to allow straightforward approvals for projects that are consistent with current zoning and building code requirements. ADOPTED: SEATTLE, VANCOUVER (B.C.), CALIFORNIA, OREGON, NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, UTAH, WASHINGTON, D.C. ELIMINATING OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS Among cities that have passed ADU ordinances, some include requirements for property owners to live on-site, whether in the primary home or the ADU. This requirement is usually enforced with a covenant or deed restriction. Owner occupancy requirements limit the potential for ADU development in a few ways. In the near-term, they limit the pool of possible owners who can develop an ADU, both because they must live on the property, and because mortgage lenders may avoid lending on them. Lenders see these requirements as risky: If they need to foreclose, the bank would immediately be out of compliance as a non- occupant owner. In the long term, such requirements restrict the flexibility that makes ADUs so attractive, as owners may have different needs and uses for their property over time. So far, concerns about an increase in corporate investor- owned properties with ADUs are not reflected in the data. In California, only eight percent of ADUs are on properties owned by companies, compared to 17 percent of the state’s housing stock.6 ADOPTED: SEATTLE, VANCOUVER (B.C.), CALIFORNIA, OREGON FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 7 INCREASING ALLOWABLE SIZE Many jurisdictions limit the size of ADUs through one or more of the following: maximum square footage, percentage of the size of the primary dwelling, and/or overall lot coverage. Size limits related to the primary house or lot size effectively penalize smaller primary homes, which will not be able to add full-sized ADUs. Explicit size requirements in ADU ordinances usually range between 750 and 1,000 square feet. Increasing the allowable lot coverage for ADUs can also add flexibility into city codes. Portland, Oregon allows up to 15 percent of total lot coverage to be taken up by detached structures on a property. Washington County in Oregon also gives a 15 percent size bonus for ADUs that are ADA-accessible. Another approach with small houses on large lots is to allow the new dwelling to become the primary structure while the original house is designated as an ADU. ADOPTED: PORTLAND, VANCOUVER (B.C.), CALIFORNIA ELIMINATING OFF-STREET PARKING MANDATES Parking matters largely because of the space it takes away from housing. Off-street parking requirements also add construction costs and can make pedestrian-friendly design more challenging. Research has shown that occupants of ADUs are generally less likely to own a car, compared to residents of detached homes.7 Forty percent of ADU occupants in California do not park a car on the street, while another 46 percent park only one car on the street.8 Parking requirements are also more strongly correlated with ADU applications than other standards, such as unit size or permit fees: California cities with no off-street parking requirements are more than twice as likely than other cities to receive at least one ADU application per month.9 ADOPTED: SEATTLE, VANCOUVER (B.C.), SAN FRANCISCO, OREGON ADDITIONAL BARRIERS Other regulations hindering ADU construction are large setback requirements, lower height caps, occupancy limits, and requiring separate utility connections to the street. High permitting costs and fees can also impact the financial feasibility of ADUs. Portland, Oregon permanently waived system development charges (impact fees for water, parks, and roads that would total about $19,000–$24,000) for ADUs in 2018; the waiver is not available to properties used for short-term rentals. FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 8 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Even with ADU-friendly regulations in place, the process of developing an ADU can be frustrating and intimidating for the average homeowner. California-based research on people who successfully built ADUs revealed that securing permits was one of the most challenging aspects of the process.10 Over 50 percent of respondents said it was difficult to get their ADU plans approved. Many shared that planning staff did not always have a good understanding of ADU regulations, or that conflicting city, county, and state development rules took time for staff and homeowners to understand and resolve. Improving staff comfort with ADU regulations is a crucial step in supporting greater ADU development. Externally, simple improvements to city websites can go a long way toward helping homeowners—the primary agents of ADU development—to understand the development process. Other initiatives that cities have used include: DEVELOPMENT PLANNING TOOLS: Cities can offer ADU planning tools along a wide spectrum in terms of investment and complexity, from a basic outline of the process to a list of FAQs, cost calculators, guidebooks, or forms and checklists that prompt homeowners to gather necessary site information for the permitting process. The City of Seattle offers a self-service interactive parcel map that uses assessor data to show whether ADUs are allowed, and how large they can be for a specific lot. Tools that help homeowners understand the process and get more information about project feasibility on their own can help maximize staff time once an application is brought to the city. PRE-APPROVED ADU PLANS: Offering a set of city-approved design and construction plans at low- or no-cost helps homeowners save on predevelopment expenses and speeds up the permitting process. Pre- approved plans can also offer design standards that help ADUs blend in with the current housing stock.11 There are different models for pre- approval: in some cases, the city owns the plans and distributes them for free, while in others, the designers maintain ownership and sell the plans to homeowners. Cities that offer free plans include the Cities of Oakland, Fort Bragg, Encinitas, Citrus Heights, and San Diego in California. In Eugene, Oregon, pre-approved plan fees, payable to the designers, are capped at $500. An important consideration with pre- approved plans is the evaluation of the costs of building each design, which affects how feasible—and therefore likely—they are to be built. Early research shows lower utilization of pre-approved plans in larger cities, from 3–5 percent. Smaller suburbs with pre-approved plans have seen utilization closer to 20 percent.12 Nonprofit organizations and consultants can also provide technical assistance to help interested homeowners start, navigate, and complete the ADU development process. NONPROFIT SUPPORT FOR ADUS: Many ADU programs offered by nonprofits have supported ADU development for lower-income homeowners. Keys to Equity is a program in the City of Oakland, California, led by community-based nonprofit Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services, with lending and philanthropic partners. The cohort-based program offers education, design and project management, financial counseling, access to an ADU loan product through Self-Help Federal Credit Union, and landlord training to its participants. Though the program is open to any homeowner in Oakland, the program’s outreach is focused on Black homeowners.13 “TURN-KEY” ADU BUILDERS: In many markets, “turn- key” ADU builders lower the barriers for homeowners by offering a fixed price for ADU design and construction, where the company also handles the permitting and approval process. Even when these ADU models are not pre-approved by the city, the designs are usually tailored with local codes in mind to speed the approval process. An ecosystem of turn-key ADU builders can offer local jurisdictions some of the benefits of pre-approved plans without the administrative costs. FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 9 COALITIONS OUTREACH After removing regulatory barriers and reducing the difficulty of navigating the development process, another key step is raising awareness about ADUs. While some cities have directly promoted ADUs through improved municipal websites and marketing campaigns, third party organizations often play a leading role in building awareness and momentum for ADUs. Nationally, AARP has been a leading voice in building awareness about the role of ADUs in creating age-friendly cities with a variety of housing options for different life stages. AARP has published a popular guidebook, The ABCs of ADUs, and has also created model state and local legislation for allowing ADUs in residential zones.14 State AARP branches have also been active in promoting ADUs and supporting ADU legislation. At the local level, successful activities to generate awareness and interest in ADUs include: • Securing local media coverage of first-hand success stories about homeowners who have built ADUs • ADU consultations and classes • Tours of local ADUs • ADU concierge services through a dedicated non-profit POLICY AND LEGISLATION ADUs should be considered a first step toward a more inclusive array of housing types that can and should be built in residential, urbanized areas. Many stakeholders could become allies to back this type of legislative effort if that type of broad support were deemed to be helpful in the pursuit of statewide legislation. Stakeholders may include small-scale and local developers, realtor associations, banks, credit unions, home builder associations, architectural groups, urban planning associations, disability advocates, affordable housing groups, faith communities, and many others. Broad coalitions have proven to be extremely effective in galvanizing support in Oregon, California, and Connecticut, three states to date that have passed the most supportive ADU legislation in the country. (However, Connecticut’s law was weakened during passage by allowing local jurisdictions to opt out.) Such coalitions may also support broader housing policy goals related to small urban infill goals such as middle housing legislation. California’s CASITA COALITION advocates for legislation that allows and encourages smaller housing types and was a prominent voice in the campaigns for state-level laws authorizing ADUs. The Coalition has a wide range of public and private sector partners that include cities, real estate developers, community-based nonprofits, and researchers. The Casita Coalition also creates guidebooks for homeowners to navigate ADU development, sponsors webinars for the public, and hosts events for ADU professionals.15 DESEGREGATE CONNECTICUT formed in June 2020 to campaign for zoning reforms at the state level in Connecticut. The coalition includes a broad alliance of community-based organizations working across sectors of racial and economic justice, housing, transportation, and sustainable development, as well as faith communities, housing developers, trade unions, and cities. Desegregate Connecticut was a vocal supporter of HB 6107, which allows ADUs and restricts barriers to their development, such as parking requirements. In addition to videos promoting the value of ADUs for communities, the coalition’s website also provides extensive resources for the public about Connecticut’s zoning laws, planning processes, and the role of zoning in segregating communities.16 PROGRAM EXAMPLES FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 10 Financing and Development Patterns Though ADUs cost less than building a larger detached home, they are also affected by rising costs of materials and labor across the construction industry. Compared to larger homes, ADUs often cost more per square foot because they have the same requirements for livability— kitchen, bathroom, and utility connections—in a smaller space. Current estimates for ADU construction in the Twin Cities area are about $250,000 for a 750-square foot detached unit.17 In Portland, where ADUs are encouraged by local policy, it is increasingly common for newly built homes to include a detached or attached ADU. Even with this new trend, only 10 percent of ADUs in Portland were built by a professional developer. Across the country, current homeowners are the primary developers of ADUs on their property. ADUs are most often financed using a patchwork approach of different funding sources that rely on homeowners’ existing assets. The vast majority of ADUs are financed using the following approaches, in descending order of frequency:18 • Cash savings (including stocks) • Home equity line of credit • Cash out refinance • Personal loans and other non-secured lines of credit (such as credit cards) • Loans (or private gifts) from family and friends Home equity and cash out refinancing loans usually come with restrictions on the amounts that can be borrowed relative to a home’s value, and equity lines of credit can require high credit scores. Debt-to-income ratio limits can also be a challenge for homeowners with lower incomes or less home equity. These terms limit the pool of homeowners that can access such financing. Renovation or construction loans allow homeowners to borrow against the future value of the property based on the projected value after the addition of an ADU.19 But in markets with few comparable properties, the added value of the ADU may be minimal. So far, this type of financing is not among the most common tools for building ADUs. The current cost and financing environment means that most ADUs are built by homeowners with access to substantial savings or home equity. In Portland, this trend corresponds with a greater share of ADU owners between the ages of 45 and 65, compared to all homeowners (See Exhibit 2).20 Research from California’s large ADU market shows that homeowners who have built an ADU are more likely to be affluent compared to homeowners statewide, with 70 percent of ADU owners earning over $100,000 (See Exhibit 3).21 Black and Latino residents are disproportionately less likely to develop ADUs. Two percent of ADUs are owned by Black Californians, compared to 4 percent of homes, while Latino ADU and homeownership rates are 14 percent and 29 percent, respectively.22 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 11 ADDRESSING FINANCING BARRIERS Innovative funding tools that have appeared in the market or have been piloted by state and local governments to expand access to ADU ownership include: ADU-SPECIFIC LOANS: A nonprofit lender in the Pacific Northwest, Craft3, offers an ADU- specific loan product in Portland. Homeowners can borrow up to $130,000 for 10 years, with a lower interest rate available to low- or moderate-income homeowners. This loan is only available for borrowers who live, or house family members on the property.23 PUBLIC LOAN AND GRANT PROGRAMS: Cities, counties, and states have piloted loan and grant programs for ADU construction. Loan programs have often been forgivable or zero- interest loans that can be repaid when homeowners sell the property. California’s Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) offers grants of up to $40,000 for lower-income homeowners, via lending partners throughout the state. The grant can cover predevelopment and/or closing costs for other financing sources. CalHFA grants are limited to owner- occupied properties.24 FEE WAIVERS: Waiving certain development fees for ADUs—such as impact fees for stormwater, sewer, and parks—can meaningfully reduce the total cost of developing an ADU. As mentioned above, the City of Portland waives approximately $20,000 in impact fees for ADUs that will become long-term rentals or non-rented housing for family and friends. EXHIBIT 3. SHARE OF HOME AND ADU OWNERS BY INCOME IN PORTLAND, OREGON, 2021 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% < $10,000 $10,000–$14,999 $15,000–$24,999 $25,000–$34,999 $35,000–$49,999 $50,000–$74,999 $75,000–$99,999 $100,000–$149,999 $150,000–$199,999 < $200,000 Source: UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation ADU properties All Portland homes EXHIBIT 2. SHARE OF HOME AND ADU OWNERS BY AGE IN PORTLAND, OREGON, 2013 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 0% Source: Martin John Brown, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ADU properties All Portland homes 12 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Building Equity in Small Multifamily Ownership: Year 1 Progress Update | April 2022FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 POTENTIAL TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING As discussed on previous page, the base construction costs and limited options for financing ADU construction present structural challenges to the feasibility of ADUs as a source of affordable housing. Depending on homeowners’ desires to offer an ADU as a long-term rental property and their expectations for recouping their initial investment, rents on ADUs may not be affordable relative to local housing markets. Research over the past decade has found evidence that median rents on ADUs can be affordable for moderate income households, though many of those units are rented to households with a relationship to the homeowner. A study of ADUs in Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, B.C. from 2017 found that 58 percent of ADUs offered for rent had below-market rents. However, 40 percent of those affordable ADUs were rented to friends or family. Many homeowners build ADUs in order to provide affordable or free housing for family and friends; 18 percent of ADUs in California are used in this way. The share of ADUs rented to arms- length tenants for affordable rents can vary widely. Across California counties in a 2021 study, rental ADUs affordable to households making 80 percent of AMI or less ranged from 12 percent in Los Angeles to 67 percent in Marin.25 Many cities around the country are adding references to ADUs in their comprehensive plans related to supporting and encouraging diverse housing types, including Minneapolis. Some cities refer to ADUs as a potential source of additional affordable housing, but specific programs to support ADUs as affordable rental properties have primarily been limited to pilots, led by nonprofits with varying degrees of municipal partnership or support. Most of these programs are designed to serve lower-income homeowners while others have targeted higher- income owners to create regulated affordable housing. In Portland, the nonprofit BACKHOME ADU helps homeowners with development planning, connects them with affordable financing, builder partners, and property management services in exchange for renting the completed ADU to a household earning no more than 80 percent of AMI. BackHome ADU has built five ADUs and has 17 currently under development.26 Nonprofit affordable housing developer EAST PALO ALTO CAN DO offers site planning, financial consulting, and construction project management for income- qualified households in East Palo Alto, California. As part of their Packard Foundation- funded program, the finished ADU must be rented at a rate affordable at 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).27 DURHAM COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTEES in North Carolina is piloting a CLTplusOne program to include an attached ADU with a new-build home as part of their portfolio of permanently affordable owned homes within their community land trust (CLT). The new CLT homeowner will own both the home and the ADU, but Durham Community Land Trustees will manage the rental property on behalf of the owners. This pilot project is designed to be affordable to owners making 80 percent of AMI, while the ADU rent will be affordable to households at 60 percent of AMI. In future phases, the CLT hopes to be able to include ADUs in all future new construction projects and to begin adding ADUs to the properties in their existing portfolio.28 PROGRAM EXAMPLES 13 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Building Equity in Small Multifamily Ownership: Year 1 Progress Update | April 2022FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 Navigator Models Throughout the Nation In several geographies where ADUs are prominent, there are various types of an “ADU navigator,” a single organizational home to support education about and advocacy for ADUs. Many cities offer a central website for information and technical assistance related to building an ADU, and to start guiding residents through the process. The City of Louisville, Kentucky developed a robust website landing page for homeowners, architects, and builders interested in ADUs.29 The website displays critical content including types of permitted ADUs with graphic representation, land development code, a step-by-step process guide, and a link to their ADU application. The website also includes events that may be of interest, such as local conferences and federal videos. The City of Lexington, Kentucky developed a two- page handout announcing the city ordinance allowing for the incorporation and regulation of ADUs in their city30. The handout includes a simple and clear overview of the approved regulations. They also include a link to a website with additional resources and contact information.31 The City of San Jose, California created a city website with clear definitions of the allowable types of ADUs, explanations of the permitting process, explanatory videos, a library of preapproved plans, and a data dashboard about ADU permit activity in the city. San Jose also has a dedicated “ADU Ally” in its planning department who serves as a first point of contact and guide through the permitting process. For a time, the city offered expedited review for ADU plans every Tuesday. Cities in Napa and Sonoma Counties in California have partnered with the Napa Valley Community Foundation and the Community Foundation of Sonoma County to promote ADU development. The foundations maintain a website, Napa Sonoma ADU, with information about ADUs and the development process, city-specific land use codes, preapproved ADU plans and prefab models.32 Interested homeowners can also connect with a local ADU expert for a subsidized consultation and assessment of what is possible on their property. In addition to information on the city’s website, the City of Seattle, Washington has a separate ADU website, ADUniverse, integrated with geographic data that combines information about the city’s ADU policies, the permitting process, pre-approved designs, and an interactive parcel map that helps homeowners determine what is allowed on their property. FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 14 LOCAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE TWIN CITIES In October 2022, ECONorthwest convened three focus groups and a series of follow up conversations to explore challenges and opportunities in planning and building ADUs in the Twin Cities. The groups represented regional leaders working as architects and builders, funders and advocates, as well as city staff. CHALLENGES Costs versus building form expectations is challenging in the Twin Cities market. Codes limit ADUs to be approximately the same size of a residential garage (maximum of 675 square feet) and people often underestimate the cost of an ADU. At the low end for a prefab construction ADU, a homeowner can expect to pay approximately $250,000 which is high given the limited size. The winter climate in the Twin Cities drives a strong regional preference for covered parking, which will directly increase costs. Owners with capital for ADUs, for example, typically want parking for one or two cars. This need, combined with substantial requirements for frost footings for residential structures, often involves demolishing an existing garage and rebuilding a garage with an ADU on the second floor. Converting an interior space to an ADU is often very difficult. Many older homes throughout the region may not support an ADU because of their size and layout. First- ring suburbs, many of which were developed after WWII, may be a better fit due to their housing structure. However, in many cases, converting an interior space to an ADU does not add significant value because it does not change the overall square footage. Local cities do not have dedicated ADU planning staff. Permitting an ADU is technical and relies on support from multiple departments within the city. For example, Minneapolis has parallel applications for building and land use, as well as a process that involves staff from zoning, building codes, and other departments that are needed to shepherd the application through to completion. It is challenging for staff to need to explain the process to applicants because it is inherently confusing and different rules often overlap. Saint Paul requires dedicated water and sewer connections which presents a financial barrier that is unique to the city. Other neighboring cities do not require dedicated water and sewer connections. Saint Paul also requires a dedicated sidewalk leading from the ADU to the front of the primary home. This is a financial and potentially logistical challenge depending on the cost of the added sidewalk and lot coverage limitations. Well intentioned ordinances, such as requiring that ADU siding match the primary home, may be challenging in practice. For example, if a primary home has asbestos siding, requiring an ADU to match is problematic. Inconsistent and disconnected city governments generate a range of ADU ordinances that lack regional consistency. Roughly half of the cities in the Twin Cities have adopted ADU ordinances while the others do not. Individuals and developers are challenged by inconsistent expectations rather than turning to broader regional coordination. Financing ADUs is a challenge in the Twin Cities and other regions alike. When other communities, such as those along the West Coast, began building ADUs housing costs were markedly less. Therefore, given current higher building costs, more time may be required for ADUs to proliferate in the Twin Cities compared to other regions in the country. FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 15 OPPORTUNITIES Given the relatively low awareness of ADUs in the Twin Cities region, targeted outreach and promotions around ADU benefits can go a long way. Most people are not familiar with ADUs, and those who are familiar may have a narrow view of ADUs being limited to above-garage apartments. Targeting outreach around the different forms ADUs can take could make a big difference. Continuing to support tours of successfully built ADUs can create exposure for individuals interested in building on their property. Senior citizens represent an ideal market to target for ADUs because they may be interested in adapting their property for aging in place or for multigenerational living and have enough home equity or savings to finance construction. Seniors may be aware of ADU options, due in large part to the AARP’s advocacy, but they tend to underestimate costs and are less equipped to navigate the complicated process. Educating homebuilders around the benefits of ADUs for new construction may lead to basements designed as a separate unit or for a future conversion. This is a less expensive alternative and may allow for larger unit sizes. Streamlining permitting and approval processes on city websites and at a regional scale would create significant efficiencies. Nineteen different municipalities offer different rules and models which is inefficient and difficult for developers and homeowners to navigate. Pre-approved ADU plans may benefit and incentivize homeowners interested in building an ADU. The Twin Cities also has several local developers that offer turn-key ADU products and could be part of a larger coalition to promote ADUs. Adjusting ADU rules and standards in Minneapolis may meet more families’ needs in constructing ADUs. For example, increasing the 10 percent lot coverage rule for accessory structures to 20 percent would help families build larger ADUs. Also, decreasing the 20-foot setback between a detached ADU and the primary house to five feet would align with fire code building separation requirements. The 20-foot standard is an outlier and is problematic for building detached ADUs on smaller lots. Adjusting ADU rules and standards in Saint Paul may also meet more families’ needs in constructing ADUs. For example, reconsidering the requirements to dedicate separate water and sewer connections and dedicated sidewalks would be helpful. Clarifying ADU codes, particularly around rear and side-yard setbacks, could also support more ADUs. Incorporating ADU policies in local housing plans would generate more developments. With less than one-third of local cities considering ADU policies in their housing plans, there is significant opportunity for growth. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is actively working to update rules that would support ADUs, including removing the requirement that home improvement renovations be attached to the primary home. Removing owner occupancy requirements for ADUs across the Twin Cities would foster more housing opportunities for everyone. 16 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Building Equity in Small Multifamily Ownership: Year 1 Progress Update | April 2022FAMILY HOUSING FUND | Best Practices in Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit Production | November 2023 AN ADU NAVIGATOR FOR THE TWIN CITIES After reviewing conditions, challenges, and opportunities in the Twin Cities, as well as successful measures nationwide, the ECONorthwest team recommends pursuing a navigator model that supports ADUs throughout the region. Focusing resources—from funding to staff time—in a navigator would develop both broad and deep expertise in the ADU landscape across the region and efficiently provide a one-stop-shop for homeowners, developers, and builders to understand the possibilities and process for building an ADU. Given tangible adjustments in city codes, opportunities for collaboration and strategic communication among partners, and the significant interest expressed from builders, architects, and public sector leaders, the Twin Cities is well positioned to develop an ADU navigator. ECONorthwest recommends a navigator model that would offer technical assistance in the form of self-service tools and direct services to facilitate the development of ADUs in the Twin Cities. This technical assistance could include: OFFERING TOOLS: Self-service tools can help homeowners work through many of the early steps of ADU development to determine whether it is feasible on their property. These tools could include online FAQ documents, a graphic summary of the ADU development process, a workbook with exercises for setting goals, an ADU calculator providing high-level cost estimates, and/or an address look-up tool leveraging online maps and zoning data to determine whether a specific parcel meets local code requirements to add an ADU. The ADU navigator would develop, host, promote, and maintain these tools over time. PROVIDING DIRECT SERVICES: Compared to a resource library, a defining feature of a navigator is the ability to provide services to potential ADU owners to understand and manage the development process. Combining expertise in local ADU rules and feasibility with a customer service orientation can help catalyze ADU development in the Twin Cities. Some of the most effective services offered by other navigators include: hosting webinars on local guidelines for ADU design and approval; providing consultations to review ADU plans and feasibility with potential ADU owners; curating a library of ADU designs from local architects; organizing tours so individuals can see successful ADU projects; and offering ADU policy guidance to local jurisdictions. The model would also include building a coalition to explore and advance recommendations to support ADU uptake. Broad coalitions have proven to be extremely effective in galvanizing legislative support for ADUs in Oregon, California, and Connecticut, three states to date that have passed the most pro-ADU legislation in the country. Coalitions in these and other states have demonstrated that ADUs can provide an important bridge between a variety of issues, such as increasing housing supply, advancing equitable wealth- building, developing age-friendly units, and supporting energy efficiency housing. In the Twin Cities, there is a rich ecosystem of organizations working on these issues—ripe for building a coalition. In geographies across the country, ADUs are adding affordable options to the housing supply to help combat severe shortages and rising rents. The Twin Cities region should be among those success stories. 1 “Lessons From Livability Leaders: 2021 Report,” AARP online, December, 2021. 2 “Addressing Housing Challenges Across the U.S. for Aging Communities,” AARP, Future of Housing online, n.d., : 3 Binette, Joanne, Angela Houghton, and Stephanie Firestone. Drivers & Barriers to Living in a Multigenerational Household Pre-COVID – Mid-COVID, Washington, DC: AARP Research, January 2021. 4 Karen Chapple, Jake Wegman, Farzad Mashhood, and Rebecca Coleman. Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units: Lessons Learned from Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. San Francisco, CA: Urban Land Institute, 2017: 19. 5 Dan Bertolet and Nisma Gabobe, “LA ADU Story: How a State Law Sent Granny Flats Off the Charts.” Sightline Institute, April 5, 2019. 6 Karen Chapple, David Garcia, Eric Valchius, and Julian Tucker. Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and Need for ADU Finance. Berkeley, CA: Terner Center for Housing Innovation, August 2020. 7 Martin J. Brown and Jordan Palmieri. Accessory Dwelling Units in Portland, Oregon: Evaluation and Interpretation of a Survey of ADU Owners. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, June 2014; Jake Wegman and Karen Chapple. Understanding the Market for Secondary Units in the East Bay. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, October 2012. 8 Karen Chapple, Dori Ganetsos, and Emmanuel Lopez. Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, April 2021. 9 Deirdre Pfeiffer. Regulating ADUs in California: Local Approaches and Outcomes. Berkeley, CA: Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 2018. 10 Chapple, Ganetsos, and Lopez, Implementing the Backyard Revolution. 11 “South Bend Neighborhood Infill: Pre-approved, ready-to-build housing.” City of South Bend. 12 Kol Peterson, consultation report prepared for Southern California Association of Governments, Woodsong Associates. 13 “Keys to Equity,” Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services, n.d.; “Building ADUs in Oakland: The Keys to Equity Program,” SPUR [webinar], May 2022. 14 AARP. Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance. Washington, DC: 2021. 15 “How to Build an ADU.” Casita Coalition, n.d. 16 “Work Live Ride is Here!” Desegregate Connecticut, last updated January 31, 2023. 17 This estimate is based on ECONorthwest’s conversations with developers working in the Twin Cities market. 18 Research on frequency of financing by Accessory Dwelling Strategies See also: “ADU Financing Options,” Guaranteed Rate Workshop Mortgage. 19 Laurie Goodman and Solomon Greene, “To Unleash Housing Supply, Allow and Finance Accessory Dwelling Units,” ULI Urban Wire, February 3, 2020. 20 Martin John Brown and Jordan Palmeri, Accessory Dwelling Units in Portland, Oregon: Evaluation and Interpretation of a Survey of ADU Owners. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2014. 21 Chapple, Ganetsos, and Lopez, Implementing the Backyard Revolution. 22 Chapple, Ganetsos, and Lopez, Implementing the Backyard Revolution. 23 “ADU Loans,” CRAFT, n.d. 24 “ADU Grant Program,” CalHFT, last updated 2023. 25 Chapple, et al., Jumpstarting the ADU Revolution pp. 14-18. 26 Kol Peterson, phone interview with executive director of BackHome ADU, November 17, 2022. 27 “CANDO ADU Project,” EPA CAN DO. 28 “CLTPlusOne,” Buildable Backyard, n.d. 29 “Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU),” Louisville, KY last updated 2023. 30 “What’s The Scoop on ADUs?” Imagine Lexington, last updated December 2, 2021. 31 “What are Accessory Dwelling Units?” Imagine Lexington, n.d. 32 “Secure your future, support the community,” Napa Sonoma ADU, n.d. END NOTES NOVEMBER 2023 ©Family Housing Fund 310 4th Ave South Suite 9000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.375.9644 KOIN Center 222 SW Columbia Street Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97201 503.222.6060 533 Dale Street North Saint Paul, MN 55103 651.292.8710 29 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 A. Purpose and Intent. ..........................................................30 B. Definitions ..................................................................31 C. Authorization of ADUs by Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 D. Number of ADUs Allowed Per Lot in Single-Family Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 II. STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 A. Minimum Lot Size in Single-Family (and Town House) Zones .....................36 B. Types of Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 C. Size of ADUs .................................................................37 Introduction to Lot Coverage, Setbacks, Height, Bulk and Floor Area Ratios . . . . . . . . . . .37 D. Lot Coverage Limits ..........................................................38 E. ADU Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 F. Floor Area Ratios .............................................................39 G. ADU Height Limit ............................................................39 H. Architectural Consistency and Design Review ...................................39 I. Orientation of Entrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 J. ADU Screening, Landscaping and Orientation. ..................................40 K. Parking Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 L. Short-Term Rentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 M. Separate Sale of ADUs ........................................................41 N. Owner Occupancy (Residency) Standards ......................................42 O. Other Common Standards Not Recommended for Application to ADUs ............43 III. UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND BUILDING CODES .....................................43 A. Utility Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 B. Local Building Codes .........................................................43 IV. ADU APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES .....................................44 A. Application Process ..........................................................44 B. Clear and Objective Versus Discretionary Standards .............................45 C. Review Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 D. Appeals of ADU Decisions .....................................................45 V. FEES ................................................................................46 VI. LEGALIZING ADUS .................................................................46 III.MODEL LOCAL ADU ORDINANCE ATTACHMENT D 30 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance MODEL LOCAL ADU ORDINANCE This Model Local ADU Ordinance is designed for communities in states where state law allows for local ordinances authorizing and governing ADUs but does not impose any constraints on local governments. In states where local governments do not have the discretionary authority to approve ADUs (Dillon Rule states) state legislation giving them that authority must be adopted first. AARP’s “Minimal Version” of the Model State ADU Act would give local governments that authority along with complete discretion over the content of their ADU ordinances. If there is a state ADU statute that limits local government discretion (as is proposed in the AARP Model State ADU Act) then the local ordinance will need to conform to those requirements. Many provisions and notes related to standards and procedures for ADUs are duplicates, or near duplicates, of provisions and notes in the Model State ADU Act. Rather than referring readers back to those sections, which can be tiresome and confusing, this guide reproduces them as parts of the Model Local ADU Ordinance. I. General Provisions A. Purpose and Intent In this section of the ordinance, a community states its purposes in adopting the ordinance. This information may help in defending the ordinance when informing residents of how the ordinance will benefit and protect their interests and in responding to legal challenges. If a community has no purposes that differ from those of the Model State ADU Act, it may choose to reference that act’s findings and its purposes and intent, but it is recommended that at a minimum the minutes of the meeting at which the ordinance is adopted include a discussion of those benefits and a statement that they are the basis for the local ordinance. If a community has public purposes that are different from those in the Model State ADU Act, those purposes should be specified in the ordinance (after consulting legal counsel on whether they are inconsistent with any state ADU legislation). (1) The [local governing body] finds and declares: (a) Our community faces a severe housing crisis, with home prices and rents unaffordable by families and households of middle and moderate incomes. (b) The community is falling far short of meeting current and future housing demand with serious consequences for the state’s economy and the well-being of our residents, particularly lower- income and middle-income earners. (c) The [local government] can play an important role in reducing the barriers that prevent homeowners from building accessory dwellings. t 31 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance (d) There are many benefits associated with the creation of legal accessory dwellings on lots in single-family zones and in other zoning districts. These include: (i) Increasing the supply of a more affordable type of housing not requiring government subsidies; (ii) Helping older homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents and locations; (iii) Increasing housing diversity and supply, providing opportunities to reduce the segregation of people by race, ethnicity and income that resulted from decades of exclusionary zoning; (iv) Providing homeowners with extra income to help meet rising homeownership costs; (v) Creating a convenient living arrangement that allows family members or other persons to provide care and support for someone in a semi-independent living situation without the latter leaving his or her community; (vi) Providing an opportunity for increased security, home care and companionship for older and other homeowners; (vii) Reducing burdens on taxpayers while enhancing the local property tax base by providing a cost-effective means of accommodating development without the cost of building, operating and maintaining new infrastructure; (viii) Promoting more compact urban and suburban growth, a pattern that reduces the loss of farm and forest lands and natural areas and resources and limits increases in pollution that contributes to climate instability; and (ix) Enhancing job opportunities for individuals by providing housing nearer to employment centers and public transportation. (2) Accessory dwelling units are, therefore, an essential component of housing choices and supply in [local government name]. B. Definitions Even if there are controlling definitions in state ADU legislation, it is preferable to incorporate them into a local ordinance for the convenience of the users, as has been done here. The same notes found in the Model State ADU Act are repeated here. There are many alternative terms for “ADUs.” Although the term “Accessory Dwelling Unit” may be awkward and technical, it is now in such widespread use that it would add to the confusion to propose a replacement term or terms. To further simplify the discussion, the Model State ADU Act and Model Local ADU Ordinance do not distinguish between the different forms and types of ADUs, such as detached “cottages” or “internal apartments,” since the standards do not require that differentiation. The sole exception is the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit, which is offered as an optional provision. t 32 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance Three alternative definitions of ADUs are presented with the numeral “1.” Choose one of the following options: Limiting ADUs to parcels that are already the site of a single-family dwelling 1. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means a residential living unit on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling. The ADU provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It may take various forms: a detached unit; a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage; or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling. The ADU to be built before or concurrently with a single-family home 1. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means a residential living unit on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling or a parcel on which a single-family dwelling is present or may be constructed. The ADU provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It may take various forms: a detached unit, a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage; or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling. The preceding definition allows for the construction of an ADU prior to or concurrent with that of the primary residence. Two common circumstances in which an ADU might be built before the primary residence are (1) when a homeowner wishes to stage construction expenses and living arrangements; and (2) when the homeowner owns an adjacent legal lot (typically used as a side or backyard) and prefers to site an ADU there rather than on the lot with the primary residence. Suppose an owner built a 600 square foot detached dwelling on her second lot to serve as an ADU. If that lot was separately sold and the home on it was not identified as an ADU, the new owner might find that regulations limiting the size of ADUs to 75% of the primary dwelling’s size would treat the small home as the primary residence and limit the size of an official ADU to 400 square feet. The ADU to be created on a lot with a multifamily dwelling 1. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means a residential living unit on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling or a multifamily structure. The ADU provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It may take various forms: a detached unit; a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage; or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled single-family unit or a unit in a multifamily dwelling. 2. “Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” (JADU) is a separate living unit of less than 500 square feet, with a separate entrance, that may share sanitation facilities with another dwelling unit other than an ADU. The provision on junior accessory dwelling units is based on California’s definition and authorization of this type of ADU. See California Government Code Section § 65852.22. 3. “Living Area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. 4. “Zoning Administrator” means the local official who is responsible for processing and approving or denying applications to develop or legalize ADUs. 33 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance C. Authorization of ADUs by Zoning District In the absence of state legislation addressing the issue, communities have wide discretion in permitting ADUs in many types of residential zoning districts. The merits of locating ADUs in the major types of residential zones is discussed below. As a general principle, in communities with high rents and home prices relative to incomes, the governing body should allow ADUs in the full range of zones where residences are authorized. Different zones and their suitability for ADUs are discussed below. Mixed-Use Zones: In the last few decades, governments and planning advocacy groups (including AARP) have recognized the many adverse consequences of strict single-use zoning. Across the country, zoning has been reformed to allow a greater mixture of uses along with residential uses, such as institutional uses, professional services and retail commercial uses. Because of the success over the last century in reducing the pollution and noise impacts from many types of urban land uses, some communities have gone further and allowed residential uses intermingled within a wide range of nonretail commercial and light industrial zones. ADUs may not be appropriate on a variety of lots in these mixed-use zones, but they make sense on lots that are the site of a detached single-family dwelling. Multifamily Zones: These zones are distinguished by apartments or condominiums with multiple dwellings on the same lot, typically in multiunit and/or multistory structures. In recent years some cities with high housing costs have approved or are considering the authorization of ADUs on lots with multifamily structures. California requires jurisdictions to allow new ADU units to be created out of existing parts of multifamily buildings if those parts are not currently used as livable space, such as storage rooms, garages, or basements or through an addition to the building.35 In May 2020 the Chicago City Council considered a draft ADU ordinance that would allow new ADUs equal in number to 33% of the existing units in a multifamily structure on the lot. Town House Zones: These zones contain single-family dwelling units that have common walls but are not atop one another, typically one dwelling per lot. Siting ADUs in these zones can have its challenges, given building orientation and lot coverage. On the other hand, Washington, D.C., is an example of a city where many historic townhouses included an “English basement” on the lowest floors of the building. Ordinances addressing the creation of ADUs in these districts will need to provide more flexibility regarding both siting requirements and some building code standards (flexibility that does not compromise health and safety). Single-Family Zones: These zones contain one single-family dwelling unit per lot and provide the greatest opportunities for siting all types of ADUs. Some jurisdictions also allow clusters of small single-family homes, each on their own small lot or as condominium units with common space. Single-family zones also include detached single-family homes on their own lot and can be treated the same way as those homes are treated in single-family zones. Even in these single-family zones, however, neighbors’ concerns about property values, aesthetics and “neighborhood character” have often caused communities to ban detached ADUs or to allow them only on larger lots. Perversely, this can mean that ADUs are prohibited in single-family zones with large lots and bigger houses, where they can be more easily sited as detached units or created by remodeling existing space, but allowed on small lots where this is more challenging. This kind of policy choice reinforces rather than reduces the impact of exclusionary zoning. For reasons of equity and to realize the benefits described in the statement of purpose and intent, ADUs should be authorized in all single-family residential zones. In adapting the model provisions to a local zoning ordinance, a community will substitute its zoning district t 34 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance names (or abbreviations) for the model provisions’ descriptions of zoning districts. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in all zoning districts that allow residential use, subject to the requirements of this ordinance. Optional Provision: Accessory Dwelling Units on Town House Lots Definition: “Town house” is a single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units, with each unit extending from foundation to roof and having a yard or public way on not fewer than two sides. A town house structure may be constructed or remodeled as a group of two or more attached two-family dwellings under the following conditions: (1) one of the two-family dwelling units shall conform to the requirements of the accessory dwelling unit standards and (2) each two-family dwelling within the town house structure shall meet the definition of an attached house, including that it be located on its own lot. D. Number of ADUs Allowed Per Lot in Single-Family Zones In California (as of 2020) a single-family lot can have both an ADU and a junior accessory dwelling unit that is no larger than 500 square feet and is part of the primary residence. In 2019, Seattle authorized that one detached ADU and one internal ADU can be located per single-family lot. If green building or affordability requirements are met, a second detached unit could be allowed. In 2020, Portland, Oregon, decided to allow two ADUs in any configuration on each single-family zoned lot as part of a broad reform of residential zoning. Since 2016, the Canadian city of Vancouver, British Columbia, has allowed a “secondary suite” (internal ADU) and a “laneway home” (detached ADU with alley access) on single-family corner lots, double-fronted lots and lots with alleys. There are many ways to accommodate more than one ADU while being sensitive to concerns about neighborhood appearance. For example, two internal ADUs can be accommodated by remodeling a large home without increasing height or bulk. An internal unit can be allowed along with an ADU over an attached garage without increasing the area of the lot occupied by structures. Discussions about allowing more than one ADU per lot in single-family zones may result in a challenging but beneficial community discussion about the purposes of single-family zoning. Minneapolis, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; and the State of Oregon have reformed their residential zoning. The Model State ADU Act allows two ADUs per lot without specifying their form, leaving that to local government or homeowner discretion. This provision is written to allow for both concurrent and prior construction of ADUs. (The issue of the timing of ADU construction relative to construction of the primary dwelling is discussed in the alternate definitions of ADUs in I.C.1.) Some ordinances, for example Seattle’s, have made the creation of additional ADUs conditional on achieving other community goals, such as affordability, accessibility and green building performance standards. This follows the precedents created by inclusionary zoning ordinances that allow for additional units in multifamily developments if the rents for those units meet an affordability standard for a specified period. It is too soon to know whether these incentives will be effective in spurring the creation of additional ADUs. Provisions allowing these “Bonus ADUs” (BADUs) are presented here as options. (1) Any lot with, or zoned for, a principal single-family dwelling unit may have up to two ADUs. t 35 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance Bonus ADU Provisions (2) The Zoning Administrator may authorize an additional accessory dwelling if: (a) The additional accessory dwelling unit is a rental unit affordable for and reserved solely for “income-eligible households,” as defined in this ordinance. It is subject to an agreement specifying the affordability requirements under this subsection in order to ensure that the housing shall serve only income-eligible households for a minimum period of 50 years. The monthly rent, including basic utilities, shall not exceed 30% of the income limit for the unit, all as determined by the Director of Housing, and the housing owner shall submit a report to the office of housing annually that documents how the affordable housing meets the terms of the recorded agreement. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a project, and as a condition of that issuance, the applicant shall execute and record a declaration in a form acceptable to the Director that shall commit the applicant to satisfying the conditions for establishing a second accessory dwelling unit as approved by the Director; or (b) The applicant makes a commitment, in the manner required by this ordinance, that the new principal structure or the new accessory structure shall contain a detached accessory dwelling unit will meet a green building standard. A second accessory dwelling unit that is proposed within an existing structure does not require the structure to be updated to meet the green building standard; or (c) The applicant designs at least one of the dwellings on the lot to meet visitability standards including a no-step entry, [36"] wide doors and hallways, a bathroom that can be used by someone in a wheelchair, and at least [300 square feet] of living space on the main level. Based on Seattle Municipal Code 23.44.041.A.1.a.(2). “Income eligible” is not defined in the Model Local ADU Ordinance, since that can be a matter left to local discretion. Seattle has chosen to link its definition to a percentage of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development’s published Median Family Income data. See Seattle Municipal Code Section 23.84A.025. This Model Local ADU Ordinance also does not incorporate a green building standard; a local government may rely on its existing standards or adopt new ones for this purpose. Seattle’s green building standard is rigorous, referencing the standards in Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED), passive house and living building design standards, and other standards. The green building standard was adopted by the Director of Seattle’s Department of Construction as Rule 20-2017 and Inspections and can be found at Seattle.gov/dpd/codes/ dr/DR2017-20.pdf. Some other mechanisms to promote affordable ADUs are: y Letting the landlord charge market rate rent, but adopting no-fault eviction protection and/or a cap on the rate of rent increase over time. y Requiring the landlord to accept Section 8 vouchers. Based on Philadelphia Fair Housing Ordinance [Chapter 9-800 of the Philadelphia Code]: y Adopting the Good Cause eviction regulations for short-term rental [less than 12 months]. t 36 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance Provisions like these require a commitment to enforcement that is often a challenge for local planning and building departments, which are frequently underfunded. One simple mechanism for enforcement is to send a letter to the landlord every year that must be signed and returned attesting to his or her adherence to the income limit, a practice Santa Cruz adopted. II. Standards A. Minimum Lot Size in Single-Family (and Town House) Zones This section addresses the lot sizes required for ADU installation. Local governments have often imposed excessive minimum lot sizes for ADUs, which greatly restricts the number of ADUs in a community. In a survey of 50 ordinances for the 2000 edition of the Model State ADU Act and Local Ordinance, the minimum lot size requirement varied from 4,500 square feet to 1 acre (APA 1996). One community allowed detached ADUs only on lots that were 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the zoning district (Orange County, Florida, Zoning Code Sec. 38-1426 (f)(4). Some communities have the same minimum lot-size requirements for all ADUs. As a policy matter, it should not be necessary to establish a separate qualifying lot size for ADUs if the purpose is to assure the retention of landscaping and privacy between homes, because the setback and lot coverage standards can achieve those objectives. The language below requires that the minimum sized lot required for an ADU is the same as the minimum lot size for the primary dwelling. There is one exception: ADUs may be created within or attached to an existing house on lots smaller than the minimum lot size if there is an existing house on the lot. It also allows ADUs to be built concurrently with or before the primary residence (for reasons discussed in notes to the alternative definitions for accessory dwelling units). This provision also addresses the issue of legally platted lots made nonconforming by the imposition of subsequent lower-density zoning, something that occurred in many cities in the middle of the 20th century. Accessory Dwelling Units may be created on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for a single-family dwelling (or town houses). Attached and internal accessory dwelling units may be built on any lot with a single- family dwelling (or town house) that is nonconforming solely because the lot is smaller than the minimum size, provided the accessory dwelling units would not increase the nonconformity of the residential use with respect to building height, bulk or lot coverage. B. Types of Structures Many off-site manufactured and modular ADUs have been and continue to be produced; old conceptions of what constitutes a manufactured or modular home have become outdated. The Model Local ADU Ordinance provision maximizes the opportunities for ADUs by allowing any type of structure to be an ADU if that structure is allowed as a principal unit in the zoning district. A manufactured or modular dwelling unit may be used as an accessory dwelling unit in any zone in which accessory dwelling units are permitted. 37 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance C. Size of ADUs Many local governments have adopted minimum and maximum sizes for ADUs. The Model Local ADU Ordinance recommends eliminating minimum-size limits since the basic requirements for a living space (kitchen, bathroom, living/sleeping space) and the housing market will establish a minimum size. In expensive housing markets the success of micro-apartments of less than 300 square feet and the proliferation of tiny homes on wheels demonstrate that there is demand for very small units. At the other end of the scale, limits on the maximum size prevent the construction of ADUs that could be home for families of three or more persons. An accessory dwelling unit may be any size, provided the proposed unit’s total square footage is less than the primary dwelling’s and other requirements are satisfied. For situations in which the existing residence is very small, local governments might consider authorizing ADUs up to 800 square feet when the primary dwelling is smaller than that size. Burlington, Vermont, takes a different approach to this issue; it allows accessory dwelling units to be 30% of the gross square footage of the house or 800 square feet, whichever is greater. 36 Q Introduction to Lot Coverage, Setbacks, Height, Bulk and Floor Area Ratios Lot coverage, setbacks, height and bulk (floor area ratio) limits are adopted primarily to address the appearance (the “built character”) of neighborhoods. (There are some fire safety aspects to setbacks.) Cities with steep terrain apply additional or modified requirements that address vertical proximity as well as structural safety. Local governments use a number of methods to regulate the size and location of buildings (residences and other structures) to achieve aesthetic goals and assure a minimum amount of undeveloped land. These methods are limits on the proportion of a lot that is used as a site for permanent structures (“lot coverage”); the setback from the property lines; and height and floor area ratios that establish the maximum square footage of residential structures based on a percentage of the total lot area. These limits are often used in various combinations, sometimes as alternative standards. For example, setbacks alone without a separate lot coverage limit can effectively create a lot coverage maximum. The failure of some ADU ordinances to result in the production of ADUs can be traced back, in part, to these requirements, especially the unintended interaction between those regulations. Before adoption of these requirements for ADUs, local governments may benefit from analyzing the combined effect of these regulations on a representative set of lots in each zone. In addition to determining whether the effect is to make it physically impossible to build a detached (or attached) ADU on some lots, the local government should estimate the return on investment on that portion of the lots where ADU construction is allowed. This will provide some idea of the strength of the potential market incentive for ADU construction. However, the analysis needs to reflect that the homeowners building ADUs are often considering both a market return and nonmarket returns. For example, assume the desired ADU is intended to meet the needs of an older relative with mobility limitations. A 500-square-foot structure would be small but sufficient. But if the overlapping regulations on lot coverage and setbacks mean the structure would need to have two stories in order to provide 500 square feet of living space, then this kind of structure might generate a good rental return but would not meet the needs of the intended resident. 38 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance D. Lot Coverage Limits Coverage limits can be applied to all structures on a lot, combined (e.g., primary house, detached garage, garden shed, ADU); all accessory structures combined, including an ADU; or a separate lot coverage applicable just to detached ADUs that are not part of another accessory structure. Lot coverage allowances and limits intersect not only setbacks but floor area ratio limits and height limits. If detached or attached ADUs are significantly constrained by a lot coverage limit, then the possibility of having a two-story ADU may determine whether the investment in an ADU will generate a big enough return to justify its construction. Steep slopes and impacts on stormwater runoff may require differences in lot coverage allowances for some sites. Some communities are under consent decrees entered into with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address stormwater discharges. These consent decrees, which set standards for the maximum proportion of a lot that can be covered with impermeable surfaces, must be incorporated into local standards. Requiring or allowing the use of permeable pavers, which can be exempted from lot coverage calculations, helps address those standards. These consent decrees are another good reason not to require on-site parking. Whenever possible, limitations on lot coverage should be addressed at the planning stage (for example, through the use of overlay districts) rather than being determined and applied in the permitting process. Siting and design standards that help meet performance standards for building safety and stormwater runoff can be determined and adjusted at the permitting stage for these kinds of sites. That is preferable to a complete prohibition. An accessory dwelling unit (detached, attached or built by expanding the footprint of an existing dwelling) on a lot of 4,000 square feet or larger shall not occupy more than 15% of the total lot area. For single family lots of less than 4,000 square feet, the combined lot coverage of the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling shall not exceed 60%. Accessory dwelling units built within the footprint of existing, legal accessory structures are considered not to have changed existing lot coverage. E. ADU Setbacks (1) A setback of no more than 4 feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure. (2) No setback shall be required for an existing garage living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure and converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit. (3) A detached accessory dwelling unit is not permitted on the front half of a lot, except when located a minimum of 30 feet from the front line or if it falls within the provision of subsection (2). Adapted from California Government Code 65852.2(a)(D)(vii) and Los Angeles Metropolitan Code 12.22 A.33(d)(3). 39 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance F. Floor Area Ratios Floor area ratios (FARs) qualify the relationship between the size of a lot and the maximum square footage that can be built on the lot. A FAR can be written as, for instance, 0:75 to 1, 0.75 or 75. FARs are commonly used in commercial districts, like downtowns, but sometimes are applied to residential zones. For example, a FAR of 0.75 applied to a 5,000-square-foot lot would allow for a maximum of 3,750 square feet of residential living space. The most common substitute for FARs is a zonewide maximum square footage for homes. FARs have advantages as a method for regulating ADUs because they provide more flexibility about the size of the ADU, whether internal, attached or detached. They also lend themselves to bonus provisions that allow for ADUs or types of ADUs that achieve goals concerning housing production, affordability and the like. Many local governments do not include the area of a below ground basement in the FAR limitation. This exclusion makes sense when applied to basement ADUs. In the absence of this kind of provision, the design of basement ADUs can include strange elements, like a small storage area usable only by the upstairs primary dwelling, in order to reduce the square footage of the ADU in an effort to conform to the maximum-size regulation. The Model Local ADU Ordinance does not propose provisions on the topic because of the wide variety of variations possible and potential complexity when combined with other siting standards. But readers interested in how FARs can be tailored to accommodate and promote a variety of housing types, may wish to consider the application of FARs developed through the residential infill project in Portland, Oregon (2016–2020). Portland sharply reduced the maximum size of single-family dwellings but allowed additional FAR for additional units.37 G. ADU Height Limit The maximum height of an Accessory Dwelling Unit is 25 feet or the height of the primary residence, based on the highest point of its roof compared with the lowest point of ground level at the foundation, whichever is less. Adapted from Charlottesville, Virginia, Municipal Code Sec. 34-1171.(3). H. Architectural Consistency and Design Review Concern about the consistency of detached ADUs with the design of residential architecture in the neighborhood has translated into a variety of standards and procedures. Highly discretionary standards based on neighborhood “character” or “quality” can be serious obstacles to the construction of ADUs. Vague standards of that sort hamper homeowners and decisions-makers alike. They can become an avenue for channeling neighborhood objections to ADUs in general. In some cases, the prescriptions for particular designs and materials can also add considerably to the cost of an ADU. A better approach is to reduce key design elements to a set of objective standards governing roof pitch, window orientation and siding. In some cases, design standards only apply in certain districts or when the ADU is larger than a specified height or taller than one story. Some cities are experimenting with standardized, preapproved designs for ADUs that do not require the same level of regulatory review. This approach can be used to encourage the use of designs that fit comfortably within the prevailing aesthetic of neighborhoods. As has been noted in other parts of the Model Local ADU Ordinance, with regard to design standards ADUs t 40 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance should be held to the same standards as primary dwellings. If bold new architectural designs are allowed for primary residences, then it does not make sense to require an ADU to look like a craftsman bungalow. For this reason, the Model Local ADU Ordinance recommends against establishing separate architectural or design standards for ADUs. I. Orientation of Entrance Many ADU regulations limit the location and design of the entrance to the ADU. While presented as a matter of aesthetics, an ADU entrance on the same side of the house as the main entrance may be considered objectionable because it advertises the existence of a second dwelling, which is taken as detrimental to the single-family-dwelling “character” of the neighborhood. This is evident in communities that allow direct access into different levels of the house (daylight basement or French doors for a bedroom) or stairs to outside decks but prohibit entrance doors and stairways accessing ADUs. Ironically, some of these places have policies promoting ADUs and requiring notice to the neighbors before an ADU can be built, yet also have a code provision intended to hide the entrance to the ADU. These requirements can compromise the design and increase the cost of the ADU, substituting a more awkward and expensive entrance. Following the general principal of treating ADUs like the primary dwelling, the authorization and location of access doors and stairs for detached and attached ADUs should be the same as for primary dwellings. Regulations governing the location, type and number of entrances into primary dwellings apply to ADUs. J. ADU Screening, Landscaping and Orientation Privacy is a major concern of neighbors, but ADU regulations addressing privacy were/are relatively rare. In some cases, the loss of privacy caused by an ADU is identical to the loss of privacy that would result from the construction or remodeling of an adjacent home. Sometimes the loss of privacy is caused by the removal of trees or shrubbery necessitated by the construction of the ADU. Again, this loss of screening vegetation for the primary dwelling is often not regulated. Thus, it should not be regulated with ADUs. K. Parking Requirements Many local governments require one or more off-street parking spaces for each ADU. This is a serious inhibition to the construction of ADUs for two reasons. First, the cost of creating off-street parking spaces.38 Second, the lot size, location of the primary residence and topography may make the creation of a parking space impossible.39 The impact of parking requirements on ADU production is suggested by the results of a 2018 survey of California cities with ADU regulations. Out of the 168 cities, 68% reported having minimum off-street parking requirements for ADUs . Prior to the 2017 California legislation that eliminated off-street parking within a half-mile of transit, localities receiving frequent ADU applications were much more likely to lack off-street parking requirements (31% versus 13%).40 Given the general oversupply of parking41 and its impacts on home prices and rents (and more generally urban development and redevelopment) minimum parking requirements are being reconsidered and reduced. Hartford, Connecticut;42 Buffalo, New York;43 and Edmonton, Alberta,44 are among the cities that have eliminated most or all minimum parking requirements. Other cities have reduced or eliminated parking requirements for different types of housing.45 t 41 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance No additional off-street parking is required for construction of an ADU. If the construction of the ADU necessitates the removal of an existing off-street parking space, it must be replaced on-site if required by the underlying zoning. In lieu of an on-site parking space, an additional on-street parking space may be substituted if there’s already sufficient curb area available along the frontage for a parking space or by removing the parking space access ramp and reinstalling the curb. Based on Seattle Land Use Code 23.44.041 A.5. L. Short-Term Rentals Many cities and residents are concerned about the use of homes, apartments and ADUs for short-term rentals, especially in regions, cities or districts that are tourist destinations. Use of these dwellings for short-term rentals can remove existing housing from the supply available for residents, worsening affordability and introducing commercial-use types of impacts in residential areas. Short-term rentals are often a major subject of debate in high- amenity areas where the return on investment in an ADU used for short-term rentals is much higher than from those used for long-term housing. But the exact the same concerns apply to the short-term rental use of primary dwellings. If short-term rental regulations or prohibitions are adopted they should apply to all housing in the jurisdiction or zone, not just ADUs. Many ordinances already have such limitations or prohibitions on the use of homes as transient lodging in their land use regulations, and those could be extended to ADUs. However, the following are examples of counterarguments in support of the short-term rental use of ADUs (and primary dwellings): y The high return from short-term rentals spurs the construction of more ADUs than would otherwise occur, and these ADUs will, over time, convert into long-term rentals or other uses. y The goals of ADU authorization are wealth creation and allowing seniors to stay in their homes, and the high return from short-term rentals helps realize those objectives. y Survey research shows that ADU owners value the flexibility of ADUs. If the owner loses a job, she may cope by turning her home office in the ADU into a short-term rental. If an elderly parent living in an ADU moves to a nursing home, the owners can then rent out the ADU as a short-term rental to pay the nursing home costs. M. Separate Sale of ADUs Most accessory dwelling unit ordinances are silent on the separate sale of the units as condominiums. A few prohibit this practice. The policy basis for these restrictions seems to be a concern that allowing ADUs to be sold as condos will fuel speculative redevelopment of existing housing in high-cost neighborhoods. In addition, neighbors and local officials fear the prospect of both units being rental units, which is the basis for the owner occupancy requirement. On the other hand, neighbors who have concerns about having rental units nearby might logically prefer an owned ADU to a rented ADU. Property owners and developers in Austin, Texas, determined that state law authorizes the separate sale of ADUs as condominiums. Developers subsequently began to purchase single-family homes, build ADUs (called Auxiliary Dwelling Units) on the lots, then sell the ADU condominiums and primary residences separately. Only some lots and homes are appropriate, however — typically those with alley access, because of the requirements for separate access and parking. As of the writing of the second edition of the Model Local ADU Ordinance, builders in Austin are contacting homeowners about forming a condo association with them and buying backyards as sites for the second homes. t 42 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance Vancouver, British Columbia, allows the separate sale as “strata” (condominium) units alley-fronting “coach houses” on lots with “character” homes (certain ones built before 1940 that are not on a historic register) as a financial incentive to carry out major upgrades needed to bring homes up to current building codes.46 “Condominium” refers not to a type of structure but a form of ownership in which an agreement among the parties defines separate and common areas and establishes standards and procedures governing the common areas. Allowing ADUs to become separately owned condominium units avoids the political reaction of authorizing land divisions to create separate lots for ADUs. But fee simple ownership is less complicated and easier to finance and sell than condominiums. As a matter of terminology and logic, it would be confusing to call a detached dwelling “accessory” to a principal dwelling if that dwelling is on a separate lot with separate ownership. The Model Local ADU Ordinance leaves this policy question open, providing as alternatives the allowance of and prohibition of the separate sale of ADUs. N. Owner Occupancy (Residency) Standards Requirements that the owner live on the same property (whether in the primary dwellings or the ADU) are pervasive. The 2000 edition of the AARP Model Local ADU Ordinance noted: “Many communities monitor ADUs to ensure that the owner still lives on the premises. A variety of methods are used to do this monitoring including registration of occupants, certification of occupancy, and annual licensing of rental units with annual inspections. Other communities require ADU owners to record the requirements of the ADU ordinance as deed restrictions, particularly the owner-occupancy requirement. The deed restrictions accompany the title of the property and give notice to all subsequent buyers of the occupancy requirement.” Owner occupancy covenants or conditions give pause to homeowners or institutions financing home purchases because of the limits they place on successive owners who will not be able to rent out or lease their main house, which might be necessary as a result of a divorce, job transfer or death. They can also make financial institutions reluctant to provide financing for construction of the ADU. Finally, because a covenant or condition serves as a restriction on a mortgage lender’s security interest in the property, the mortgage lender can withhold consent to any requirement that takes the form of a covenant, which means the local government would be required to deny the application to build an ADU.47 The practical impact of the occupancy requirement is to inhibit construction of most ADUs. That conclusion is reflected in amendments to California’s and Oregon’s ADU legislation and in Seattle’s 2019 local code revisions. Aside from its effect on ADU production, there is a problem with the logic and fairness of applying an occupancy standard to ADUs if there is no such requirement for single-family homes generally. If single-family homes can be rented out (by a nonresident owner), then what is the policy basis for requiring occupancy when there is an ADU on the property? One of the justifications for the owner occupancy requirement is the assertion that owners take better care of their property than nonresident owners. But there are certainly resident homeowners who do not take care of their property and nonresident owners who keep their property in excellent condition. The 2020 Model State ADU Act treats ADUs as an equal and important type of housing that, in general, should be subject to the same set of rules that governs the use of other housing. ADUs should not be treated as an inferior form of housing that requires additional restrictions and policing. Authorizations of or prohibitions on renting out t 43 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance dwellings should be applied consistently to ADUs and other homes; if there is no owner occupancy requirement for primary residences, there should be none for ADUs. O. Other Common Standards Not Recommended for Application to ADUs The following commonly used standards are no longer recommended for inclusion in ADU ordinances: y Density of ADUs in a zone or district y Age of principal dwelling y Size of principal dwelling y Tenure of current owner y Number, age, relationship and physical condition of persons who can live in the ADU y Annual renewal and monitoring of permits y Owner occupancy/residency on the same property III. Utility Connections and Building Codes A. Utility Connections New or separate water and sewer lines directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the trunk lines are not required unless the accessory dwelling unit is constructed before or in conjunction with a new single-family dwelling. Applicants may choose to use a shared water meter for the primary structure and the ADU or have a separate water meter installed for each. A best practice for municipalities is to not require new, dedicated lateral services from the utility/right-of-way to the property. These utilities include water, sewer, electric, and gas connections. Commonly, water and sewer services are provided in part by governmental agencies, whereas electric and gas utilities are commonly provided by private energy providers. Ideally, energy providers do not require ADUs to have a dedicated lateral service connection from the right-of-way to an ADU, as new connections often cost several thousand dollars. However, when energy utilities are publicly owned, then the same principle should apply. B. Local Building Codes Since many garages and basements weren’t built to today’s earthquake or frost line standards, requiring that a structure meet current code may effectively require demolition and new construction, thereby eliminating a realistic or feasible option for a structural conversion. Permitted, nonconforming structures should be allowed to change their use from a nonhabitable use to a habitable use without a conditional use permit or special exception from the building code, even if the structure does not meet current structural standards. This is commonly referred to as “grandfathering in” existing structures. This policy is critical in enabling structural conversions. There are several other key considerations for internal conversions related to existing ceiling heights and t 44 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance existing stairwells. In general, the goals should be to allow existing spaces to have reduced building code thresholds for numerous building code standards.48 The Portland, Oregon, guide to “Converting Attics, Basements and Garages to Living Space” makes internal conversions of living space to create ADUs more feasible by adjusting several elements of building codes: y Ceiling heights y Exceptions to ceiling heights for beams, heating ducts, pipes y Sloped ceilings y Existing stairs y Noncompliant stairs y Stair landings y Firewall separation Achieving higher energy efficiency in buildings is a critical strategy for reducing greenhouse gases. But it can increase the cost or reduce the design feasibility of ADUs created by conversions of existing space. Conversions of basements and garages to ADUs are typically the most common type of ADU conversion. In the past, homes and garages were built with 2"x 4" stud walls versus the 2"x 6" framing used today, which accommodates much thicker insulation. Requiring a conversion to meet today’s energy standards may require the replacement of all of the existing stud walls to provide sufficient wall cavity space to accommodate sufficient insulation and meet modern energy code. This interior stud wall or additional 2" wall furring or exterior rigid foam insulation can add substantially ($5,000 to $20,000 in the Portland market in 2020) to construction costs and reduce the interior size of the living space of an already small dwelling. If the effect of these energy standards is that more large homes or new apartments are constructed the net effect might be to increase energy consumption in order to heat and cool the larger spaces and because of the embedded energy in the materials used for new construction. IV. ADU Application and Review Procedures There are many potential procedural challenges facing ADU applicants: complex regulations, complicated application forms and procedures, vague and discretionary standards that must be addressed by the applications, the length and complexity of the procedures for acting upon an application, and appeals from the initial decision on the application. A. Application Process Zoning regulations, even in small jurisdictions, are almost inevitably complicated. Even in mid-sized cities they can run to hundreds of pages. Unlike developers and homebuilders, many applicants for ADUs don’t have the resources to hire an attorney or consulting planner for more than a few hours to help them navigate the regulations and application process. In response, many local governments have developed simplified application forms, guidebooks, and online tools to determine whether and how an ADU can be sited on a property. This is a best practice recommended by AARP. See the Resources section for links to some examples. With the authorization and construction of more ADUs, more private sector specialists in ADU permitting are helping to fill this need. 45 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance B. Clear and Objective Versus Discretionary Standards Vaguely worded standards contribute to the difficulty of securing ADU permits and may even inhibit homeowners from applying for a permit. Particularly problematic are standards that leave a great deal of discretion to the zoning administrator or require extensive interpretation. Even an apparently objective standard such as a 25-foot height limit requires the exercise of considerable discretion if the ADU roof has different elevations and the ground slopes in different directions. AARP recommends using only clear and objective standards to govern ADUs.49 A best practice is to use expert advice to prepare and test language to ensure that it is clear enough to be administered fairly and easily. C. Review Procedures The two basic options available to a community are to allow ADUs “by right” or to allow ADUs through conditional use permits (sometimes called special exception, special permit, or special land use). “By right” means that the process involves filling out an application and presenting it to a local building official or zoning administrator, then checks to see that it meets the requirements of the ordinance. If the standards are clear and objective, no discretionary decision-making is involved and thus no hearing is necessary. This is also called a “ministerial” review. This is the way building or remodeling a home or building an accessory structure is typically treated. By contrast a conditional use permit process typically involves the application of discretionary standards, public notice of the application and a public hearing. Discretionary standards combined with a public hearing process create opportunities for obstruction by neighbors or organizations opposed to new housing in an established neighborhood. The cost of hiring attorneys or other experts and the delays associated with hearings and appeals can easily exhaust the budget and patience of even an affluent ADU applicant. These obstacles have led many local and state governments to decide that ADUs should be a use allowed by right and subject only to ministerial review. Some have also imposed time limits for decisions on ADUs. (Some governments apply these requirements to other types of housing.) The Model Local ADU Ordinance takes the position that building an ADU should be treated the same way as building or remodeling a home or building any accessory structure — it is a ministerial matter decided by a zoning administrator without notice or opportunity for a hearing. D. Appeals of ADU Decisions Many local zoning ordinances allow for initial decisions on ADU applications by a zoning administrator to be subject to internal appeals — to a hearing officer, the planning commission or a local governing body. Some local governments allow up to two internal appeals. The final local government decision on an ADU, or other land use matter, may be followed by an appeal to the judicial system. There are many variations on internal appeal procedures, for example whether the scope of review is limited and who qualifies as a party to such an appeal. t 46 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance The Model Local ADU Ordinance obviates the need for detailing these provisions by making the ministerial decision the final local government decision, reviewable by the courts subject to the standards and procedures generally applicable to judicial review of local government decisions. This is consistent with the default procedural provisions in the Model State ADU Act. The zoning administrator’s decision on an application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit constitutes the final decision of [name of local government]. V. Fees In addition to construction cost, regulatory standards and procedures, homeowners interested in building an ADU must consider permit processing fees, system development charges (to fund a share of capital improvements, such as water lines, sewage treatment capacity, schools and parks), and utility connection upgrades and charges. The average local government fee for development of an ADU in California in the late 2010s was $9,250.50 In established neighborhoods where ADUs are being added, system development charges designed to pay for capital improvements may not be as appropriate if existing capital improvements are already adequate to handle a modest increase in residential population. Many older neighborhoods have a lower population density than when they were built and household sizes were larger. Another approach is to offer fee processing waivers for homeowners who use preapproved ADU designs. Waiving or reducing fees can incentivize ADU construction. Portland, Oregon, saw a surge in ADU applications when it offered to temporarily waive up to $15,000 in system development charges that would have applied to ADUs; ADU permits tripled from about 200 per year to 600 per year.51 The Model Local ADU Ordinance follows the Model State ADU Act in limiting charges for ADUs to 30% of the charges applied to a single-family residence. Permit application and review fees, utility hook-up fees and charges for public improvements for accessory dwelling units shall not be more than 30% of the application fees for a typical single-family dwelling unit of 2,000 square feet or greater than 10% of the estimated construction costs for the ADU, whichever is less. Additional amounts may be charged for a variance but subject to the overall maximum fee limit of 30% of the fees charged for a typical single-family residence of 2,000 square feet. The information required on applications for creating or legalizing ADUs shall be the same information required to construct a single-family-dwelling unit. VI. Legalizing ADUs An illegal ADU is one installed without obtaining the required permits from the local government. Some ADUs existed prior to any ordinance that made them illegal. Local governments generally have the discretion to certify those ADUs as legal, nonconforming ADUs if they conformed to building codes in effect at the time of their construction. To this end, California has adopted legislation allowing that “the appropriate enforcement official may make a determination of when a residential unit was constructed and then apply the California Building Standards Code and other specified rules and regulations in effect when the residential unit was determined to be constructed for purposes of issuing a building permit for the residential unit.” t 47 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance Other ADUs that were nonconforming may be made conforming by subsequent code revisions, such as those proposed in the Model Local ADU Ordinance, and an application and receipt of a permit. The continued existence of illegal ADUs may actually be encouraged by harsh regulations, excessive fees and tedious application procedures. Many ADU owners strongly resist legalization out of a fear of higher (and possibly unaffordable) property taxes, fines, legal sanctions, income taxes on rental income, the costs of conforming to local codes and the possibility that code inspectors will discover a variety of code violations. For these reasons, programs to accommodate illegal ADUs have not been very successful. In addition, most communities have limited budgets for enforcing ADU regulations, meaning that code enforcement relies on specific complaints. Thus, most communities simply ignore illegal ADUs. Especially challenging are the large numbers of unpermitted units in working class and poor neighborhoods with high housing costs. The number of unpermitted units can be so great that they cannot be treated as a minor compliance problem that can be remedied quickly. In these places, unlike in many other neighborhoods, water and sewer systems are overtaxed due to high population densities and low revenue from system development charges over time (given that most of the added units are unpermitted). A grant program or long-term investment strategy is needed to allow for infrastructure capacity and state-of-good-repair upgrades. Regulations imposed on units applying for amnesty in these areas need to distinguish between matters of true health and safety (adequate egress, electrical wiring, light, ventilation, etc.) and other concerns (parking, setbacks, building heights, etc.). Amnesty should not be an all-or-nothing process. There should be some sort of mechanism for graduated compliance over time (perhaps several years), with the most urgent life-and-death conditions being fixed first and others later. Onerous utility-related requirements (such as fully separate water and sewer main connections) may be counterproductive. Many or most homeowners going through amnesty will need technical assistance and perhaps grant funding. Grant funding should be justified on the basis of an amnestied ADU typically costing far less than the city subsidies needed for a below market new construction housing unit. There are many entities, such as nonprofits and university planning and architecture departments, with which a city can partner for technical assistance. A city can also require affordable rent concessions as a condition of amnesty, at least for middle- and higher-income homeowners. Some benefits accrue to communities that legalize illegal ADUs. If illegal units are tolerated, the risk increases that other people will be encouraged to have illegal units. In this instance, it can be quite important for community leaders to make the statement through ADU regulation that they are committed to the public interest, as demonstrated by requirements that owners of illegal ADUs come forward and legalize their units, coupled with a commitment to the kinds of funding and assistance programs for moderate- and low-income homeowners t 48 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance of the type described previously. Legalizing illegal ADUs provides the opportunity to correct safety hazards, such as inadequate electrical wiring. We recommend against harsh regulations, lengthy application processes and high fees, which will lead to even more illegal ADUs. We recommend publicizing the opportunity for amnesty for ADUs made compliant as a result of amendments to local ordinances, nonpunitive safety inspections when public health is threatened, amnesty periods from enforcement, extended periods to comply with regulations, exemption from all but safety regulations, a comprehensive long-term approach to code compliance in moderate-income neighborhoods, and reliance on the threat of stiff penalties only after all else has failed. 49 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance Endnotes 1 See MissingMiddleHousing.org. 2 Find the average size of a single-family home, the square footage per person, the number of new homes that began construction and gross domestic product per person, starting in 1920. “Size of a Home the Year You Were Born,” Evan Comen, Michael B. Sauter, April 5, 2019, 247wallst.com 3 “California ADU Growth by City from 2012–2019, Charted,” August 22, 2020, BuildingAnADU.com.. 4 Kol Peterson, AccessoryDwellings.org. 5 “Housing Vancouver,” City of Vancouver, Progress Report and Data Book to Council (June 2020), pages 7, 8, 25. Vancouver.ca. 6 Jessica Lee, Greta Kaul, “ADUs Were Supposed to Help Minneapolis’ Housing Crunch. How’s That Working Out?” May 1, 2019, MinnPost.com. 7 Revised Code of Washington 43.63A.215. 8 California Government Code 65852.150. 9 New Hampshire RSA 674:71-73. 10 Oregon Revised Statutes 197.312(5). 11 § 45-24-37 (limited to use by persons over 62 or with disabilities). 12 24 Vermont Statutes Annotated Section 4412 (E). 13 The revisions made as the result of passage of one Senate and five Assembly bills are summarized in the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook, pages 4–7 (September 2020). 14 Oregon Revised Statutes 197.312(5)(b)(B), 455.610(8), (9) as amended or added by Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019), HCD.ca.gov. 15 Vermont Senate Bill 237 signed by the Governor and effective October 12, 2020, amending 24 Vermont Statutes Annotated §4412(1)(E), 24 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 2291(29) and 27 Vermont Statues Annotated §545. 16 2019 Florida Statutes online §163.31771. 17 30-A Maine Revised Statues Annotated §4301, sub-§1-B. 18 Hawai’i Revised Statutes §46-4(c). 19 Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation: An Overview of State Policy, American Planning Association (APA) and AARP, 2021. 20 ADU Program Guide, City of Portland, Oregon, March 2019, Portland.gov.. 21 City of Portland, Oregon, “Converting Attics, Basements and Garages to Living Space,” February 2019, Portland.gov 22 Here is an excerpt from a 2018 letter sent from a bank to a prospective borrower. It discusses an owner occupancy covenant on the property that would be required as a condition of approval for construction of an ADU: “I have reviewed the Accessory Dwelling Unit Covenant and as a lender I have a number of concerns: 1. The covenant does not provide the lender with protections in the case of a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure as the restriction will affect marketability of the property. The covenant requires at least one of the units be owner-occupied. In a market where there is a demand for investment property, this limits the pool of potential buyers thus affecting the sales price and marketability of the property. A potential homeowner or home purchaser may have a difficult time obtaining conventional financing with this deed restriction; 2. Your covenant states that the owner needs to occupy the residence, if the lender forecloses the lender can clearly not occupy the property and will be in violation of your proposed covenant.” Another example is provided by a reply to a request from homeowners asking their mortgage lender to consent to an owner occupancy covenant, which was required by the local government as a condition of approval of an ADU that the homeowners hoped to build. The mortgage lender replied: “The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Covenant would place certain limitations on this property, and as such could be construed as a transfer of interest in the property. [The bank] is not able to provide consent to such transfer at this time.” 23 24 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 4412 (1)(F)(2) and 24 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 2291(29) as amended by Sections 1 and 3 of Vermont Senate Bill 237, signed by the Governor and effective October 12, 2020. 50 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance 24 “Regulating ADUs in California: Local Approaches & Outcomes,” Deirdre Pfeiffer, University of California, Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation (2018), CaliforniaLandUse.org 25 “Accessory Dwelling Units,” City of Burlington, Vermont, BurlingtonVT.gov. 26 The cost to put in a new driveway averages $4,421, with a typical range between $2,379 and $6,472. A customer can expect to pay $2 to $15 per square foot for materials and installation. (“How Much Does a Driveway Cost?” HomeAdvisor.com, checked December 21, 2020). A 10-foot-wide driveway 60 feet in length would cost between $1,200 and $9,000, using these cost-per-square-foot numbers. | Kol Peterson, author of Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to Accessory Dwelling Unit Development, estimates the cost range as $2,500 to $15,000, depending on whether the additional driveway requires excavating and pouring a new pad on a flat surface next to the street or if it calls for a new curb cut and new landscaping. 27 Research conducted for Oregon’s House Bill 2001 (2019), which mandates the authorization of middle housing in single-family- residential zones), found“[o]n small lots, even requiring more than 1 parking space per development creates feasibility issues because it limits the potential building footprint.” EcoNorthwest (2020), Summary of Triplex/Fourplex Financial Feasibility Sensitivity Testing for Middle Housing Model Code, Oregon.gov. 28 “ Regulating ADUs in California: Local Approaches & Outcomes,” Deirdre Pfeiffer, University of California, Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation (2018), CaliforniaLandUse.org. 29 Professor Donald Shoup of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), calculates that the U.S. has 2 billion parking spaces for 250 million cars and light trucks and that more land has been set aside for housing cars than housing people. “Parking Is Sexy Now. Thank Donald Shoup,” Bloomberg News CityLab, May 20, 2018, Bloomberg.com. 30 City of Hartford, Connecticut, “Zone Hartford: Hartford Zoning Regulations,” Section 7.2 Parking Requirements, effective January 16, 2016, as amended June 5, 2020. 31 Daniel Baldwin Hess (2017) “Repealing Minimum Parking Requirements in Buffalo: New Directions for Land Use and Development,” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 10:4, 442-467. 32 Edmonton City Council Votes to Remove Minimum Parking Requirements: With the Change, Edmonton Becomes First Major City in Canada to Drop Parking Minimum,”CBC News, June 23, 2020, CBC.ca. 33 For example, City of Oakland, California, Oakland Planning Code (as amended through June 2020), 17.116.060, “Off-Street Parking: Residential Activities” (no parking required for single family and multifamily residences in many zones): City of Portland, for sites within 1,500 feet of a transit stop, “The minimum number of required parking spaces for a site with a Household Living use is: (1) Where there are up to 30 dwelling units on the site, no parking is required; (2) Where there are 31 to 40 dwelling units on the site, the minimum number of required parking spaces is 0.20 spaces per dwelling unit”; Portland City Code, Title 33, Planning and Zoning 33.266.110, “Minimum Required Parking Spaces,” as of October 2020. 34 Oregon Revised Statutes 197.805 – 197.860. 35 California Government Code 65852.2.(e)(1)(C), (D). 36 “Accessory Dwelling Units,” City of Burlington, Vermont, BurlingtonVT.gov. 37 As of November 2020, the City of Portland’s website includes links to Ordinance 190093 as amended to accommodate the reforms in single-family zoning, adopted August 12, 2020, and resulting from the residential infill document and various supporting documents, including staff reports and research that addresses height, bulk, set backs and floor area ratios, Portland.gov. 38 The cost to put in a new driveway averages $4,421, with a typical range between $2,379 and $6,472. A customer can expect to pay $2 to $15 per square foot for materials and installation. (“How Much Does a Driveway Cost?” HomeAdvisor.com, checked December 21, 2020). A 10-foot-wide driveway 60 feet in length would cost between $1,200 and $9,000 using these cost-per-square-foot numbers. | Kol Peterson, author of Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to Accessory Dwelling Unit Development, estimates the cost range as $2,500 to $15,000, depending on whether the additional driveway requires excavating and pouring a new pad on a flat surface next to the street or if it calls for a new curb cut and new landscaping. 39 Research conducted for Oregon’s House Bill 2001 (2019), which mandates the authorization of missing middle housing in single-family residential zones, found “[o]n small lots, even requiring more than 1 parking space per development creates feasibility issues because it limits the potential building footprint.” EcoNorthwest (2020), “Summary of Triplex/Fourplex Financial Feasibility Sensitivity Testing for Middle Housing Model Code,” Oregon.gov. 40 “Regulating ADUs in California: Local Approaches & Outcomes,” Deirdre Pfeiffer, University of California, Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation (2018), CaliforniaLandUse.org. 51 | AARP – Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance 41 Professor Donald Shoup of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), calculates that the U.S. has 2 billion parking spaces for 250 million cars and light trucks and that more land has been set aside for housing cars than housing people. “Parking Is Sexy Now. Thank Donald Shoup,” Bloomberg News CityLab, May 20, 2018, Bloomberg.com. 42 City of Hartford, Connecticut, “Zone Hartford: Hartford Zoning Regulations,” Section 7.2 Parking Requirements, effective January 16, 2016, as amended June 5, 2020. 43 Daniel Baldwin Hess (2017) “Repealing Minimum Parking Requirements in Buffalo: New Directions for Land Use and Development,” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 10:4, 442-467.. 44 “Edmonton City Council Votes to Remove Minimum Parking Requirements: With the Change, Edmonton Becomes First Major City in Canada to Drop Parking Minimum,” CBC News, June 23, 2020, CBC.ca. 45 For example, City of Oakland, Oakland Planning Code (as amended through June 2020), 17.116.060, “Off-Street Parking: Residential Activities” (no parking required for single-family and multifamily residences in many zones): City of Portland, for sites within 1,500 feet of a transit stop, “[the] minimum number of required parking spaces for a site with a Household Living use is: (1) Where there are up to 30 dwelling units on the site, no parking is required; (2) Where there are 31 to 40 dwelling units on the site, the minimum number of required parking spaces is 0.20 spaces per dwelling unit,” Portland City Code, Title 33, Planning and Zoning 33.266.110, “Minimum Required Parking Spaces,” as of October 2020. 46 Details can be found at Vancouver.ca/home-property-development/retain-your-character-house.aspx. 47 Here is an excerpt from a 2018 letter sent from a bank to a prospective borrower. It discusses an owner occupancy covenant on the property that would be required as a condition of approval for construction of an ADU: “I have reviewed the Accessory Dwelling Unit Covenant and as a lender I have a number of concerns: 1. The covenant does not provide the lender with protections in the case of a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure as the restriction will affect marketability of the property. The covenant requires at least one of the units be owner-occupied. In a market where there is a demand for investment property, this limits the pool of potential buyers thus affecting the sales price and marketability of the property. A potential homeowner or home purchaser may have a difficult time obtaining conventional financing with this deed restriction; 2. Your covenant states that the owner needs to occupy the residence, if the lender forecloses the lender can clearly not occupy the property and will be in violation of your proposed covenant.” Another example is provided by a reply to a request from homeowners asking their mortgage lender to consent to an owner occupancy covenant, which was required by the local government as a condition of approval of an ADU that the homeowners hoped to build. The mortgage lender replied: “The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Covenant would place certain limitations on this property, and as such could be construed as a transfer of interest in the property. [The bank] is not able to provide consent to such transfer at this time.” 48 Converting Attics, Basements and Garages to Living Space,” City of Portland, 2019, Portland.gov. 49 Because of the uncertainties created for approval of housing, Oregon has, since the 1980s, required local governments to use only clear and objective standards to review needed housing. Oregon Revised Statutes 197.307(4). 50 “Regulating ADUs in California: Local Approaches and Outcomes,” Deirdre Pfeiffer (2018), University of California, Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, CaliforniaLandUse.org. 51 When the waiver was made permanent for ADUs that were subject to a prohibition on short-term rentals the volume declined as the deadline was removed, but remained at more than 300 per year. ATTACHED ADU SECOND-STORY ADU BASEMENT ADU The ABCs of ADUs A guide to Accessory Dwelling Units and how they expand housing options for people of all ages GARAGE-CONVERSION ADU DETACHED ADU AARP.org/ADUs Orange Splot LLC is a development, general contracting and consulting company with a mission to pioneer new models of community-oriented, affordable green housing developments. Orange Splot projects have been featured in the New York Times, Sunset magazine and on NBC’s Today show. (The detached ADUs on page 3 and the back cover are by Orange Splot.) Company founder Eli Spevak has managed the financing and construction of more than 300 units of affordable housing, was awarded a Loeb Fellowship by the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, cofounded the website AccessoryDwellings.org and serves as chair of Portland, Oregon’s Planning and Sustainability Commission. AARP is the nation’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people 50 or older to choose how they live as they age. With nearly 38 million members and offices in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, AARP strengthens communities and advocates for what matters most to families: health security, financial stability and personal fulfillment. The AARP Livable Communities initiative works nationwide to support the efforts by neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties, rural areas and entire states to be livable for people of all ages. Websites: AARP.org and AARP.org/Livable Email: Livable@AARP.org Facebook: /AARPLivableCommunities Twitter: @AARPLivable Free Newsletter: AARP.org/LivableSubscribe Website: OrangeSplot.net Email: eli@OrangeSplot.net Copyright ©AARP 2021, 2nd edition (1st edition published in 2019) | AARP is a registered trademark. | All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of AARP, except brief quotations in connection with reviews written specifically for inclusion in magazines, newspapers or websites, or limited excerpts strictly for personal use. AARP and Accessory Dwelling Units Visit AARP.org/ADU to order or download our free publications and find more resources about ADUs. ATTACHED ADU SECOND-STORY ADU BASEMENT ADU The ABCs of ADUs A guide to Accessory Dwelling Units and how they expand housing options for people of all ages GARAGE-CONVERSION ADU DETACHED ADU AARP.org/ADUs AARP’s ADU Publications (from left): This introductory guide; guidance about creating an ADU model state act or local ordinance; a detailed guide to design and development. An ADU Design Catalog with a summary of ADU policies in Austin, TX; Denver, CO; Oakland, CA and the District of Columbia. Accessory Dwelling Units A Step by Step Guide to Design and Development  Accessory Dwelling Units Model State Act and Local Ordinance CREATED FOR STATE AND LOCAL LEADERS BY AARP Government Affairs DETACHED ATTACHED INTERIOR (UPPER LEVEL) INTERIOR (LOWER LEVEL)GARAGE CONVERSIONABOVE GARAGE The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 1 Welcome! Come On In Accessory dwelling units are a needed housing option for people of all ages We know from surveys by AARP and others that a majority of Americans prefer to live in walkable neighborhoods that offer a mix of housing and transportation options and are close to jobs, schools, shopping, entertainment and parks. These preferences — coupled with the rapid aging of the United States’ population overall, the decrease in households with children and the national housing shortage — will continue to boost the demand for smaller homes and affordable, quality rental housing. As small houses or apartments that exist on the same property lot as a single-family residence, accessory dwelling units — or ADUs — play a major role in serving a national housing need. This traditional home type is reemerging as an affordable and flexible housing option that meets the needs of older adults and young families alike. p Accessory dwelling units (or ADUs) come in many shapes and styles. The ABCs of ADUs is a primer for elected officials, policymakers, local leaders, homeowners, consumers and others to learn what accessory dwelling units are and how and why they are built. The guide also suggests best practices for how towns, cities, counties and states can support the creation of ADUs as a way to expand and diversify housing options. INTERIOR (UPPER LEVEL)DETACHED ATTACHED INTERIOR (LOWER LEVEL)ABOVE GARAGE GARAGE CONVERSION In fact, in the 2021 AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, adults age 18 or older who would consider creating an ADU said they’d do so in order to: • provide a home for a loved one in need of care (86%) • provide housing for relatives or friends (86%) • have a space for guests (82%) • create a place for a caregiver to stay (74%) • increase the value of their home (69%) • feel safer by having someone living nearby (67%) • earn extra income from renting to a tenant (63%) Since ADUs make use of the existing infrastructure and housing stock, they’re also environmentally friendly and respectful of a neighborhood’s pace and style. An increasing number of towns, cities, counties and entire states have been adapting their zoning or housing laws to make it easier for homeowners to create ADUs. n 2 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs What ADUs Are — And What They Can Do ADUs are a family-friendly, community-creating type of housing the nation needs more of Although most local governments, zoning codes and planners in the United States use the term accessory dwelling unit or ADU, these small homes and apartments are known by dozens of other names. The different terms conjure up different images. (Who wouldn’t rather live in a “carriage house” than in an accessory or “ancillary” unit?) Even if you’ve never heard of accessory dwelling units or ADUs, you have likely heard of — and perhaps know the locations of — some of the home types noted in the list at right. n • accessory apartment • backyard bungalow • basement apartment • casita • carriage house • coach house • English basement • garage apartment • granny flat • guest cottage • guest house • in-law suite • laneway house • multi-generational house • ohana unit • secondary dwelling unit p Accessory dwelling units show up in neighborhoods throughout the country — and even in pop culture. One example: In the sitcom Happy Days, Fonzie (right) rents an above-garage ADU from the Cunningham family in 1950s-era Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ADUs Are Also Known As … CR E A T I V E C O M M O N S • An ADU is a small residence that shares a single-family lot with a larger, primary dwelling • A s an independent living space, an ADU is self-contained, with its own kitchen or kitchenette, bathroom and sleeping area • An ADU can be located within, attached to or detached from the main residence • An ADU can be converted from an existing structure (such as a garage) or built anew • ADUs are found in cities, in suburbs and in rural areas, yet are often invisible from view because they’re positioned behind or are tucked within a larger home • Because ADUs are built on single-family lots as a secondary dwelling, they typically cannot be partitioned off to be sold separately • An ADU can enable family members (including family caregivers) to reside on the same property while having their own living spaces • An ADU can provide housing for a hired caregiver • An ADU can provide rental income to homeowners • ADUs are a practical option for tenants seeking small, affordably priced rental housing • For homeowners looking to downsize, an ADU can be a more appealing option than moving into an apartment or, if they’re older, an age-restricted community • ADUs can help older residents remain independent and “age in place” • A s an adaptable form of housing, ADUs provide flexible solutions for changing needs. n p Renting out this 350-square-foot garage-conversion ADU in Portland, Oregon, helps the property owner, who lives in the lot’s primary residence, pay her home mortgage. Although many people have never heard the term, accessory dwelling units have been around for centuries (see page 6) and are identified by many different names. To be clear about what’s being discussed: PH O T O A N D L I S T F R O M AC C E S S O R Y D W E L L I N G S . O R G The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 3 t A DETACHED ADU (aka DADU) is a stand-alone home on the same lot as a larger, primary dwelling. Examples include backyard bungalows and converted outbuildings. Location: Portland, Oregon Photo by David Todd p A LOWER-LEVEL ADU is typically created through the conversion of a home’s existing basement (provided that height and safety conditions can be met) during construction of the house or (above and on page 7) as part of a foundation replacement and house lift. Location: Portland, Oregon | Photo by Chris Nascimento u Access to an UPPER-LEVEL ADU can be provided through a stairway inside the main home or directly from an exterior staircase. This 500-square-foot ADU is part of a 1,900-square-foot primary dwelling. Location: Portland, Oregon Photo by Eli Spevak, Orange Splot LLC p An ATTACHED ADU connects to an existing house, typically through the construction of an addition along the home’s side or rear. Such units can have a separate or shared entrance. In this example, the owners built a connection between the house and what was a detached garage. The addition and the space above the garage contain the ADU, which has its own entrance (pictured at right). Location: Anne Arundel County, Maryland Photo by Melissa Stanton, AARP Since ADUs are custom designed and created, they’re able to fit discreetly into all sorts of locations, including suburban subdivisions, walkable towns, urban neighborhoods — and, of course, large lots and rural regions. p A GARAGE ADU converts all or part of an attached or detached garage into a residence. Other options: adding an ADU above a garage or building a new unit for both people and cars. Location: Cape May, New Jersey Photo by Melissa Stanton, AARP ADUs Come in Many Shapes and Styles 4 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs ADUs Are Good for People and Places Communities that understand the benefits of ADUs allow homeowners to create them ADUs are an economical housing option • ADUs can generate rental income to help homeowners cover mortgage payments or simply make ends meet. The income provided by an ADU tenant can be especially important for older people on fixed incomes. • Since the land on which an ADU is built already belongs to the homeowner, the expense to build a secondary residence is for the new structure only. • Many ADUs are created for family members or friends to reside in for free or at a discounted rate. In fact, when a loved one is in need of care or can’t live alone, an ADU can be a viable alternative to a costly assisted-living facility. • Although market rate rents for ADUs tend to be slightly more than for similarly sized apartments, they often represent the only affordable rental choices in single-family neighborhoods, which typically contain few or no small or rental housing options at all. • The state of California and some municipalities are boosting ADUs by providing grants and other incentives as part of affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies to help lower-income households build ADUs or reside in them at reliable rents. ADUs are community- compatible • ADUs offer a way to include smaller, relatively affordable homes in established neighborhoods with minimal visual impact and without adding to an area’s sprawl. • ADUs provide a more dispersed and incremental way of adding homes to a community than other options, such as multistory apartment buildings. • ADUs are typically managed by homeowners who live on the premises. Such landlords are less likely to tolerate a destructive tenant. ADUs are good for the environment • ADUs require fewer resources to build and maintain than full-sized homes. • ADUs use significantly less energy for heating and cooling. (Of all the ADU types, internal ones tend to have the lowest building and operating costs.) ADUs are just the right size • Generally measuring between 600 and 1,000 square feet, ADUs work well for the one- and two-bedroom homes needed by today’s smaller, childless households, which now account for nearly two- thirds of all households in the United States. ADUs are able to house people of all ages • ADUs offer young people entry-level housing choices. • ADUs enable families to expand beyond their primary home. • ADUs provide empty nesters and others with the option of moving into a smaller space while renting out their larger house or letting an adult child and his or her family reside in it. • An ADU’s use can be adapted for different household types, income levels, employment situations and stages of life. n SO U R C E : N A T I O N A L A S S O C I A T I O N O F H O M E B U I L D E R S , U . S . C E N S U S B U R E A U FACT: ADUs house more people per square foot of living area than single-family homes do. Big houses are being built, small houses are needed Do we really need more than three times as much living space per person as we did in 1950? Can we afford to buy or rent, heat, cool and care for such large homes? YEAR 1950 2020 Median square footage of new single-family homes 983 2,261 Number of people per household 3.8 2.5 Square feet of living space per person 292 904 The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 5 HOME VISIT #1Attached ADU Addition Santa Cruz, California Size: 500 square feet p The area with the darker roof shingles is the ADU that was added onto the home of Carrie and Sterling Whitley. t q The Whitleys’ ADU (that’s Carrie showing off the front yard’s new paths and plantings) has its own entrance on the side of the home and is being rented to the couple’s daughter so she can help her elderly parents when needed. When Carrie and Sterling Whitley bought their house in 1971, they paid less than $15,000. Nearly 50 years later, similar homes on their street have sold for more than $1 million. THE PROBLEM: The Whitleys, who are in their 80s, own the house outright and don’t want to move. But the financial and physical demands involved in maintaining the house are a challenge. A SOLUTION: To help low-income homeowners age 62 or older live independently and keep their homes, the Monterey Bay affiliate of Habitat for Humanity and the City of Santa Cruz launched My House My Home: A Partnership for Aging-in-Place. The pilot program builds accessory dwelling units so older homeowners can downsize into a new, aging-friendlier home and earn rental income from their original house. Or such homeowners can remain in their house and rent out the new, smaller residence. Participating homeowners are required to charge an affordable rental rate. REALITY CHECK: When the Whitleys’ project broke ground in April 2017, they were the first homeowners to receive an ADU through the program, which worked with them to design the ADU as an addition to their existing home. Since the dwelling was built with accessibility features, Carrie and Sterling know they can downsize into it if they ever need to. Until then, their daughter, Brenda, resides in the addition. REAL LIFE: “I’m right next door to my parents in case they need me or need any help,” Brenda says. Design: Historic Sheds | Builder: Historic Sheds | Cost to build: $158,000 in 2017 (not including volunteer labor) | Photos by Michael Daniel | Article adapted from Where We Live: Communities for All Ages (AARP 2018) ADU ADVICE: With an attached ADU, privacy between the two residences can be achieved by locating the ADU bedroom(s) and bathroom(s) as far as possible from the main house. Providing the ADU with its own yard or outdoor space is helpful too. AA R P q This carriage house containing a one-bedroom, one-bath ADU above a two-car garage sits behind a six-level, Gilded Age, Hoboken, New Jersey, townhome that was built in 1883. The dual residence property was on the market in 2018 for $5 million. ADUs Are an American Tradition While today’s interest in ADUs may be new, the housing type is centuries old Early settlers often built a small home to live in while constructing their larger, primary house nearby. When farming was a source of survival for most of the nation’s households, families routinely constructed additional homes on their land when needed. People with wealth and acreage regularly populated their lands with secondary mansions and ancillary buildings independent of the main estate house. In fact, until the 20th century, people who owned land built as many homes as they wished, often for extended family or workers. There were few or no zoning rules, municipal services or infrastructure needs (utilities, roads, schools, trash collection, first-responders) to consider. A historic precedent for the modern day accessory dwelling unit is the “carriage house,” or “coach house.” Originally built for horse-drawn carriages, the structures associated with grander homes were frequently large enough to double as living quarters for workers such as stable hands. Decades later, in response to housing shortages and economic needs, many surviving carriage houses were converted into rental homes. By becoming landlords, the owners gained income from their often unused outbuildings. Automobile garages have a similar history. Some were originally built with a housing unit upstairs. Over time, many garages were converted (often illegally or under zoning codes no longer applicable today) into small homes when the spaces became more valuable for housing people than vehicles. With the rise of suburban single-family home developments following World War II, ADUs practically ceased to be built legally in the United States. Then as now, residential zoning codes typically allowed only one home per lot, regardless of the acreage and with no exceptions. Attached and detached garages occupied yard space that might otherwise have been available for ADUs. Some cities, including Chicago, grandfathered in pre-existing “coach house” ADUs — but only if they remained consistently occupied. In Houston’s historic and trendy Heights neighborhood, old and new garage apartments are common and desired. Many communities don’t allow new ADUs, even if they did in the past. Even in rural areas with ample land, property owners are often prohibited from creating secondary dwellings or continuing to live in preexisting ones. Countless units in single-family homes or yards are technically illegal simply because they date from when such units were not allowed. ADUs began making a comeback in the 1980s as cities explored ways to support smaller and more affordable housing options within single-dwelling neighborhoods. In 2000, in response to a growing demand for ADU- supportive guidelines, AARP and the American Planning Association partnered to release a model state act and local code for ADUs. An updated resource was published by AARP in 2021. (See an image of it on the inside front cover of this guide.) Many state and local governments are legalizing and encouraging the creation of ADUs (see page 8), driven by high housing costs and, in some cases, the belief that homeowners with suitable space shouldn’t be so restricted in the use of their property. n PH O T O : M I M I P A R K , D E S I G N P A R K , I N C . The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 7 “I see our ADU as something very similar to a student loan,” says Mara Owen. “It’s something you invest in the future with. It was cheaper than buying a house for Mom, and it lets her have independence. It’s great knowing we can check in on her whenever.” AH-HA MOMENT: Owen, her partner, Andrew, and their three dogs were sharing a one-bedroom, one-bath house with her mother, Diane. When Owen learned that ADUs were allowed in the city, she decided the best way to get more space for her small home’s many residents would be to remove their “leaky and defunct” garage and build a new two-car garage with an apartment above it. WISE ADVICE : “Get a really great builder and architect,” says Owen. “Interviewing architects was similar to a first date. It’s not just who you feel connected with. That’s important, but get to the values. It’s a niche market, so see if you can find someone who has built ADUs before, because ADUs are a little different.” FUTURE PLANS: The stairs to Diane’s apartment are wide enough for a stair lift, if it’s ever needed. The roof was built at the correct slope for the eventual installation of solar panels. Design: Hive Architecture | Builder: Hive Architecture | Cost to build: $167,000 in 2016 | Photo by Mara Owen | Article adapted from “ADU Case Studies” by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org. Visit the website to read about and see photographs of more ADU projects. The transformation of this colorful Victorian was both a preservation and expansion project. TEACHING MOMENT: “Here’s a very welcome breath of fresh air, especially in the face of so much gentrification that is going on in Portland!” declared Mark Lakeman, principal of Communitecture, an architectural, planning and design firm, about the pictured remodel. Writing on his company’s website, he says the project provides a lesson in how to “adapt and reuse our precious historic houses so they can accommodate more people while also providing more income to support the existing home.” HOW’D THEY DO IT? To add a basement rental unit, engineers lifted the house. The resulting ADU is roughly four feet underground and four feet above. THE ACHIEVEMENT: Adds Lakeman: “Unlike the seemingly pervasive method of simply tearing down existing buildings so that new, giant ones can be built, this approach achieves upgrades in energy efficient living places and adds density while retaining the continuity of our beloved historical urban environment.” Design: Communitecture | Home Lift: Emmert International Builder: Tom Champion | Cost to build: $125,000 in 2015 | Photos by Communitecture (before) and Chris Nascimento (after) HOME VISIT #2Garage Apartment ADU Denver, Colorado Size: 360 square feet HOME VISIT #3Basement ADU Portland, Oregon Size: 796 square feet p The apartment above the garage can be reached from inside the garage or from an exterior side entrance accessed from the yard it shares with the primary residence. p By lifting the house and digging beneath it, designers, engineers and builders turned a two-story, single-family home into a three-story, multifamily residence. (The ADU’s entrance is pictured on page 3.) 8 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs The Time Is Now Rules for ADUs continue to evolve and frequently differ from one town to the next Some communities allow almost any home to be set up with an ADU — so long as size limits, property line setbacks and placement caveats in relation to the primary dwelling are met. Others start with those basic standards and then layer on extra requirements that can make it challenging to create an ADU. (Learn more on pages 14 and 15.) Municipalities nationwide have been relaxing their restrictions against ADUs, and several states now require communities to allow them. Some examples: • New Hampshire and Vermont allow ADUs nearly everywhere single-family housing is permitted. New Hampshire’s 2017 legislation stemmed in large part from the frustration of builders who couldn’t construct the backyard cottages and garage apartments their clients desired. • In 2020, the California legislature declared that “allowing accessory dwelling units in zones that allow single-family and multifamily uses provides additional rental housing, and is an essential component in addressing California’s housing needs.” The state allows up to one ADU and one JADU per lot. (What’s a JADU? See page 14.) • Oregon requires cities and counties of certain sizes to allow ADUs in all single-family areas within urban growth boundaries. In 2021, the state extended ADU rights to rural residential areas. • Other states allowing ADUs include Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah. Many cities now allow ADUs, including Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Georgia; Annapolis, Maryland; Asheville, North Carolina; Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii; Houston, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C.n To Encourage ADUs LOCAL OFFICIALS can … • allow all ADU types (detached, attached, interior) • simplify the building permit process for ADUs • waive or reduce permit and impact fees • establish funding programs to help homeowners create ADUs • let garages be converted into ADUs without requiring replacement off-street parking • allow for the creation of a second ADU, subject to a combined size cap COMMUNITY PLANNERS can … • adopt simple, flexible but nondiscretionary ADU rules about setbacks, square footage and design compatibility with the primary dwelling LENDERS can … • work with homeowners to finance the construction of ADUs by using renovation loans ADVOCATES can … • organize tours of completed ADUs in order to inform and inspire the community • educate homeowners, real estate agents, architects and builders about local zoning regulations and the permit process REAL ESTATE AGENTS can … • educate themselves and their clients about rules for the construction of ADUs LOCAL MEDIA can … • report on how and why homeowners build ADUs PH O T O : S A R A H D A L E F O R A A R P u Located on the lowest floor of a town house, an English basement is a partially belowground apartment that has its own exterior entrance. They are typically found in older cities such as New York or (pictured) Washington, D.C. In the past, property owners used the space as servant quarters. Today, these essentially built-in ADUs are often used as rental apartments. The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 9 HOME VISIT #4Internal ADU (Main Level) Portland, Oregon Size: 220 square feet Even small homes can have enough space for an ADU. An underused main floor bedroom in this 1.5-story, 1,500-square-foot bungalow was transformed into a studio apartment. AH-HA MOMENT: According to Joan Grimm, who owns the home with Rita Haberman: “What we were looking for in terms of a community and aging in place was right under our noses. Remove a fence and create a shared open space. Build a wall and create a second dwelling unit. It doesn’t have to be complicated.” REAL LIFE: “Creatively carving out an ADU from the main floor of our house saved on design and construction costs,” Grimm adds. “It provides an opportunity for rental income, with no significant compromise to the livability of our home.” p The steps and side entrance lead to the studio apartment ADU, which was crafted out of an existing space. The covered porch to the right leads to the primary residence. The ADU contains a kitchen, small dining and living area, sleeping area, bathroom and laundry area. (See two interior photos on pages 19 and 20.) HOME VISIT #5Internal ADU (Lower Level) Portland, Oregon Size: 795 square feet “We were looking for a way to live in our house for the rest of our lives and to generate at least some income in the process,” Robert Mercer and Jim Heuer wrote for the program guide of the annual Portland ADU Tour when their home was part of the lineup. “An ADU offers the possibility of caregiver lodging in the future or even a place for us to live while we rent out the main house if we get to the point where we can’t handle the stairs any longer.” THE SOUND OF SILENCE: Internal ADUs often require that soundproofing insulation be installed between the primary dwelling and the accessory unit that’s below, above or beside it. In Portland, the building code for duplex residences requires a sound insulation rating of at least STCC45. To property owners thinking about a similar ADU setup, the duo advise: “Think about how you live in your home and how having downstairs neighbors will change what you can and can’t do with your space and what investment you are prepared to make in sound insulation.” AN ADDED BONUS: “We are pleased that we have been able to provide more housing density on our property and still be in keeping with the historic character of our home.” q The door to the right of the garage leads to a ground-floor ADU with windows along the back and side walls. The upper-level windows are part of the main residence. Design: DMS Architects | Builder: Weitzer Company | Cost to build: $261,000 in 2016 | Photo by Melissa Stanton, AARP Article adapted from the 2017 ADU Tour project profiles on AccessoryDwellings.org Design: Rita Haberman | Builder: RS Wallace Construction Cost to build: $55,000 in 2015 (with some work done by the homeowners) Photos courtesy Billy Ulmer | Article adapted from “ADU Case Studies” by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org 10 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs Bringing Back ADUs The reasons for creating or living in an ADU are as varied as the potential uses ADUs are flexible. Over time, a single ADU might be used in many ways as an owner’s needs and life circumstances change. Following are just a few reasons why ADUs are created and by whom: EMPTY NESTERS can build an ADU and move into it, then rent out the main house for supplemental income or make it available to their adult children. FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN can use an ADU as housing for a nanny or au pair or even a grandparent or two, who can then help raise their grandkids and be assisted themselves as they age. INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF CARE can reside in an ADU to be near family members, or they can use the ADU to house a live-in aide. (In fact, ADUs can be an affordable and more comforting alternative to an assisted-living facility or nursing home.) HOME BUYERS can look forward to the rental income from an ADU to help pay their mortgage or finance home improvements, especially in expensive housing markets. HOME-BASED WORKERS can use an ADU as their office or workshop. HOMEOWNERS can use an ADU for guests or as housing for friends or loved ones who: • aren’t yet financially independent, such as new high school or college graduates • need temporary housing due to an emergency or while renovating their own home • have disabilities but can live independently if family reside nearby n Planning and Paying for ADUs Most new homes are built by developers, entire subdivisions at a time. Apartments are also built by pros. But ADUs are different. Although ADUs are occasionally designed into new residential developments, the vast majority are created by individual homeowners after they move in. In other words, ADUs are usually created by enthusiastic and motivated amateurs. An ADU may present the ultimate chance for a do-it-yourselfer to build his or her small dream home. More often, homeowners bring in a combination of architects, designers and construction contractors to do the work, much as they would for a home addition or major kitchen remodeling. The local municipality’s planning department can provide guidance on the rules for ADUs and information about what permits, utility connections and fees are involved. ADUs aren’t cheap, and they are often the most significant home improvement project a homeowner will undertake. Although internal ADUs can sometimes be built for about $50,000, new detached ADUs often exceed $150,000. Most ADUs are financed through some combination of savings, second mortgages, home equity lines of credit and/or funds from family members (sometimes a relative who ends up living in it). In some areas, the cost of building an ADU can be recouped after a few years of renting it. If that’s the plan, it’s worth estimating the expenses versus the potential income before undertaking an ADU project. A few cities, nonprofits and start-ups are experimenting with creative financing options that could put ADUs within reach for more homeowners and their families, as well as prospective renters. p The zoning code in Evanston, Illinois, permits accessory dwelling units, creating an opportunity for the owners of this 1911 home with an outbuilding in the backyard. PH O T O : E L I S P E V A K , O R A N G E S P L O T L L C W/D DW SCREEN PORCH BEDROOM BATHROOM LIVINGLIBRARY NICHE KITCHEN/ DINING PRIVACY WALL - DISCUSS W/ OWNER DN DN DN DN SHOWER HEAD ABOVE 4' - 3 1 / 2 " SHOWER CONTROLS SD-3.2 4 SD-3.2 1 SD-3.25 OPTIONAL EXTERIOR STORAGE - DISCUSS W/ OWNER LINE OF ROOF ABOVE - EXTENDED OVERHANG FOR COVERED DRIVER SIDE EXISTING WALL 30" SINK AND BASE CABINET - CONFIRM WITH OWNER 13 ' - 1 1 " 14' - 8 1/4"FAUX WINDOW W/ LOUVER INFILL SHUTTER 7' - 5 1 / 2 " 14 ' - 3 " HINGED BUILT-IN TO REVEAL W/D BEYOND SD-3.1 1 SD-3.12 SD-3.1 3 UNDERCOUNTER FRIDGE OFFICE/ GAMEROOMPOWDER ROOM DN NEW STAIR RELOCATED DESK COVERED WALKWAY BELOW READING NOOK STORAGE ACCESS SINK RELOCATED CARD TABLE BOOK SHELF POTENTIAL WINDOW - DISCUSS W/ OWNER 19' - 10 1/4" 15 ' - 1 0 " STORAGE ACCESS SHADED AREA INDICATES ROOF STRUCTURE CUT @ 3'-0" ABOVE FF BOOK SHELF 1359 La France St, Unit A Atlanta, GA 30307 tel 404/653/0553 fax 404/653/0025 711 PONCE de LEON AVENUE 8/29/2013 SD-2.1 SD-2.1 2 1/8" = 1'-0"SD-2.1 1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN - GARAGE ADDITION The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 11 When Walt Drake decided to downsize, his son Scott purchased his dad’s house for himself and his family and built a detached ADU (or DADU) for Walt. “From not finding what we wanted for Dad, we decided to create it,” says Scott. “Neighborhoods built in the 1920s have carriage houses. Building an ADU was a modern day version of something people have been doing on their property in this area for a hundred years.” NEAR AND FAR: “We wanted the houses to be separate and to feel like we’re each on our own property, but we’re there for each other,” says Scott. AGING-FRIENDLY: Building the ADU meant Walt didn’t have to leave his home and neighborhood. “He was able to keep his own stuff and turn over what he didn’t need to us,” says Scott. “It kept my dad in place, which I think was important.” FUTURE PLANS: Scott says the ADU is “serving its intended purpose” but that someday down the road it could be used as a long- or short-term rental. “The ADU could turn into lots of different things over the course of its lifetime.” p Walt Drake’s southern-style, one-bedroom ADU has an outdoor, wraparound porch that can be accessed without using steps. The design is in keeping with other buildings in the neighborhood.HOME VISIT #6Detached ADU (One-Story) Decatur, Georgia Size: 800 square feet Design: Adam Wall, Kronberg Wall | Builder: Rob Morrell | Cost to build: $350,000 in 2014 | Photo by Fredrik Brauer | Floor plan by Kronberg Wall Architects | Article adapted from “ADU Case Studies” by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org 12 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs ADUs Are Age-Friendly Housing New-construction ADUs can be created with “universal design” features p There’s a powder room, open kitchen and living room on the first floor, with a bedroom and bathroom upstairs. t Although Brom’s property is only 0.13 acres, it’s large enough to accommodate two homes, a patio, a lawn and a garage. A slatted wood fence with a gate divides the space between the two houses and provides privacy. Design: Chrystine Kim, NEST Architecture & Design | Builder: Ian Jones, Treebird Construction | Photo by Alex Hayden Cost to build: $250,000 in 2014 | Article adapted from Where We Live: Communities for All Ages (AARP 2018) HOME VISIT #7Detached ADU (Two-Story) Seattle, Washington Size: 800 square feet Evelyn Brom’s plan was to build a backyard cottage and rent it out. She would keep living in her two- bedroom home. AH-HA MOMENT: As the design developed, Brom realized that she wanted to live in the stunning wood-and-glass ADU. It was a good decision. A week before moving in, Brom was laid off from her job. REAL LIFE: The $3,000 a month Brom receives in rent for the main house (which is occupied by a three-generation family) provides a needed income. “Being laid off has made this arrangement a lifesaver,” Brom says. If the stairs in the cottage ever become too hard to navigate, she can move back into her original one-story house and rent out the cottage instead. “Now I have options,” she says. An “age-friendly” home has a zero-step entrance and includes doorways, hallways and bathrooms that are accessible for people with mobility differences. Converted garages (such as the one pictured on page 2) are among the easiest and least expensive ADU solutions for aging in place since they’re preexisting structures and generally have no-step entries. To learn more about making a home aging-friendly, download or order the AARP HomeFit Guide at AARP.org/HomeFit. The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 13 Bertha and her son John talked about someday buying a house with a mother-in-law suite. “Then one day someone came along and wanted my house, so I up and sold it,” she explains. “But that left me homeless. I asked John if I could build a small house in his backyard and he agreed.” CREATIVE THINKING: A detached bedroom is a permanent, accessory structure that, unlike ADUs, lacks a kitchen. But that’s what makes these cabin-like homes more affordable to build than many ADUs and even tiny houses. WHAT’S INSIDE: Bertha’s home contains a sleeping and living area and a full bathroom. “I paid for the little house and it’s on my son’s property. So I figured, if I’m cooking I can do it at my son’s house,” she says. (Her laundry is also done at his house.) p A detached bedroom, which contains a bathroom but no kitchen, can provide housing for a loved one or serve as a home office or guest cottage. HOME VISIT #8Detached Bedroom St. Petersburg, Florida Size: 240 square feet Trading Spaces An ADU is always the smaller of two dwellings on a property, but it’s possible for an existing home to become the ADU when a larger house is built and becomes the primary dwelling. Or the opposite can happen! Tired of living in an older house that didn’t get a lot of natural light, the home’s owners built and moved into the bright, airy, modern and very accessible ADU they created in their yard. The original, larger home has become a rental. p Although this ADU has only 721 square feet of living space, there is room enough for two bedrooms. REAL LIFE: “Having access to my son’s house makes it livable. Otherwise, I personally would not be happy. It’s very comforting to know that John is close by. Hopefully this will be my home forever.” Design: Historic Sheds | Builder: Historic Sheds | Cost to Build: $50,000 in 2017 | Photo by Historic Sheds | Article adapted from “ADU Case Studies” by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org Design: Propel Studio | Builder: JLTB Construction | Photo by Josh Partee | Cost to build: $185,000 in 2017 Adapted from “ADU Case Studies” by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org 14 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs Practical Solutions for ADUs Local laws can both allow and appropriately control the creation of accessory dwellings There are more than 19,000 cities, 16,000 towns and 3,000 counties in the United States. ADU regulations are typically adopted at the local level, although several state legislatures have required cities to allow them. Where it’s legal to build ADUs, homeowners still need to follow rules about where it can be done, how many square feet they can contain, how they can be used. These rules can be found in the local zoning code. There is a balance to strike between prudent ADU laws and encouraging their construction. For instance, after Portland, Oregon, relaxed its ADU rules in 2010 and waived impact fees (a savings of up to $12,000), the number of ADUs built rose from about 30 per year between 2000 and 2009 to nearly one a day in 2015. Changes in California’s ADU rules saw Los Angeles go from 80 applications in 2016 to nearly 2,000 in 2017. Allowing Sonoma County homeowners to add both an ADU and a JADU (see the green box below) were among the policies adopted in the wake of the area’s many devastating fires. Well-intentioned but burdensome rules can stymie the creation of ADUs. ADU-related zoning codes should be restrictive enough to prevent undesirable development but flexible enough that ADUs get built. When a community is worried about a potentially undesirable outcome, it can — and many do — craft regulations to prevent particular building types, locations or uses. A city concerned about the environmental impact of new structures might prohibit placing detached ADUs in precarious locations, such as on steeply sloping lots. Communities wary of ADUs becoming, for instance, off-campus student housing can establish occupancy rules. Every community has its own priorities and concerns, and there’s a wide enough range of regulatory controls that communities can write appropriate ADU rules. This inherent flexibility in the form and function of ADUs allows them to pass political muster and get adopted in a wide range of places. (See page 16 for more about uses and rules.) n Rules that discourage ADUs • ADU-specific regulations that don’t also apply to primary dwellings (e.g., owner-occupancy requirements) • complex design compatibility criteria and approval steps • off-street parking requirements beyond those required for the primary dwelling • restrictions that limit ADUs to certain areas, particular zoning categories or to large lots • caps on square footage relative to the primary house that make it easy to add an ADU to a large home but hard or impossible to add one to a small home Are ADUs allowed? Find out by calling your town, city or county office in charge of land use and permits — or stop by in person. You can also search for and read the zoning code through the local government’s website. • If ADUs are allowed, ask what conditions, permit needs and impact fees apply. • If ADUs are not allowed and you want them to be, ask an elected official or your community’s department of zoning and planning how the codes can be updated. • Then get organized and start advocating! JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (or JADUs) are smaller than 500 square feet and have a separate entrance but are created within the existing dwelling. A JADU can share a bathroom with the main house and contain a basic kitchen equipped with small plug-in appliances. SO U R C E : J A D U D E S C R I P T I O N I S B A S E D O N C A L I F O R N I A G O V E R N M E N T C O D E S E C T I O N § 6 5 8 5 2 . 2 2 . The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 15 1. A Definition: A good zoning code clearly defines its terminology. Here, for example, is a useful outline for what, in the real world, is a very fluid term: “An ADU is a smaller, secondary home on the same lot as a primary dwelling. ADUs are independently habitable and provide the basic requirements of shelter, heat, cooking and sanitation.” 2. The Purpose: This is where the code describes key reasons a community allows ADUs. They should: • increase the number of housing units while respecting the style and scale of the residential neighborhood • bolster the efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure • provide housing that’s affordable and responds to the needs of smaller, changing households • serve as accessible housing for older adults and people with disabilities 3. Eligibility: Who can build an ADU and on what type of lot? A statement in this part of the code clarifies that an ADU can be placed only on a “residentially zoned lot.” (Some communities provide lot size standards.) 4. Creation: The code sets out how an ADU can be built. For instance: “An ADU may be created through new construction, the conversion of an existing structure, as an addition to an existing structure or as a conversion of a qualifying existing house during the construction of a new primary dwelling on the site.” 5. Quantity: Most municipalities that permit ADUs allow one per lot. Those allowing two typically permit one internal and one external. Some allow duplexes or townhomes to have an ADU, either in the backyard or on the ground floor. 6. Occupancy and Use: A code should state that the use-and-safety standards for ADUs match those used for the main dwelling on the property. (See page 17 for more.) 7. Design Standards: • Size and height: A zoning code might specify exactly how large and tall an ADU is allowed to be. For instance: “An ADU may not exceed 1,000 square feet or the size of the primary dwelling, whichever is smaller.” Codes often limit detached ADUs to 1.5 or 2 stories in height. An example of that language: “The maximum height allowed for a detached ADU is the lesser of 25 feet at the peak of the roof or the height of the primary dwelling.” • Parking: Most zoning codes address the amount and placement of parking. Some don’t require additional parking for ADUs, some do, and others find a middle ground — e.g., allowing tandem parking in the driveway and/or on-street parking. (See page 16 for more about parking.) • Appearance: Standards can specify how an ADU’s roof shape, siding type and other features need to match the primary dwelling or neighborhood norms. Some codes exempt one-story and internal ADUs from such requirements. (See page 16 for more.) 8. Additional Design Standards for Detached ADUs: • Building setbacks: Many communities require detached ADUs to either be located behind the primary dwelling or far enough from the street to be discreet. (A code might exempt preexisting detached units that don’t meet that standard.) Although such a rule can work well for neighborhoods of large properties with large rear yards, communities with smaller lot sizes may need to employ a more flexible setback-and-placement standard. • Building coverage: A code will likely cap the combined lot coverage of a detached ADU and the primary dwelling to a specific percentage. • Yard setbacks: Most communities have rules about minimum distances to property lines and between buildings on the same lot. ADUs are typically required to follow the same rules. n Creating (or Understanding) an ADU Zoning Code The ADU section of a community’s zoning code needn’t be overly complicated. It just needs to establish clear, objective and fair rules for the following: Visit AARP.org/ADU to download Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance, a free publication that can be used by state and local officials to develop ADU policies. 16 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs ADU “Hot Topics” As communities allow ADUs or update existing zoning codes and rules to be more ADU-friendly, they inevitably wrestle with some or all of the following issues: Adding ADUs to neighborhoods Recognizing that ADUs may represent a new housing type for existing neighborhoods, communities often write special rules to ensure they’ll fit in well. These guidelines typically address visual compatibility with the primary dwelling, appearance from the street (if the ADU can be seen) and privacy for neighbors. Rules that help achieve these goals include: • height and size caps mandating that ADUs be shorter and smaller than the primary dwelling • requirements that detached ADUs be behind the main house or a minimum distance from the street • mandates that the design and location of detached ADUs be managed the same way as other detached structures (e.g., garages) on the lot • design standards for larger or two-story ADUs so they architecturally match the primary dwelling or reflect and complement neighborhood aesthetics • encouragement for the creation of internal ADUs, which are often unnoticeable from the street Each community can strike its own unique balance between strict rules to ensure that ADUs have a minimal impact on neighborhoods and more flexible rules that make them easier to build. Providing places to park ADU regulations often include off-street-parking minimums on top of what’s already required for the primary dwelling. Such rules can prevent homeowners from building ADUs if there’s insufficient space for added parking. However, the extra parking often isn’t needed. Studies of Portland, Oregon, and the San Francisco Bay area found that ADU households own an average of 0.9 cars. That’s half the national average of 1.8 cars per household. With just over 2 percent of Portland homes having an ADU (the highest percentage of any large city in the country), there’s roughly one extra car parked on the street every six blocks. This suggests that, even in booming ADU cities, any impact on street parking from ADUs is likely to be very small and dispersed. More-realistic parking rules might: • require the creation of new parking only if the ADU displaces the primary dwelling’s existing parking • waive off-street-parking requirements at locations within walking distance of transit • allow parking requirements for the house and ADU to be met by using a combination of off-street parking, curb parking and tandem (one car in front of the other) parking in a driveway Dealing with unpermitted ADUs It’s not uncommon for homeowners to convert a portion of their residence into an ADU in violation (knowingly or not) of zoning laws or without permits. Such illegal ADUs are common in cities with tight housing markets and a history of ADU bans. One example is New York City, which gained 114,000 apartments between 1990 and 2000 that aren’t reflected in certificates of occupancy or by safety inspections. Sadly, in 2021, several city residents living in unsafe basement apartments drowned in their homes due to flooding caused by Hurricane Ida. Some cities have found that legalizing ADUs, simplifying ADU rules and/or waiving fees can be effective at getting the owners of illegal housing units to “go legit” — and address safety problems in the process. n PH O T O S : M E L I S S A S T A N T O N , A A R P p Providence, Rhode Island, has many homes that were built as or long-ago converted into multidwelling units. (Notice the two front doors.) A homeowner can live in one apartment while renting out the other. Allowing and Restricting Uses Communities get to decide whether to let ADUs be used just like any other housing type or to create special rules for them. Some municipalities prefer the simple approach: regulating ADUs like other homes. So if a home-based child-care service is allowed to operate in the primary dwelling, it is also allowed in an ADU. Conversely, communities sometimes adopt ADU-specific regulations in order to avoid undesirable impacts on neighbors. Examples of those regulations include: Limiting short-term rentals ADUs tend to work well as short- term rentals. They’re small and the owner usually lives on-site, making it convenient to serve as host. However, if ADUs primarily serve as short-term rentals, such as for Airbnb and similar services, it undermines the objective of adding small homes to the local housing supply and creating housing that’s affordable. In popular markets, short-term rentals can be more profitable than long-term ones, allowing homeowners to recoup their ADU expenses more quickly. In addition, short-term rentals can provide owners with enough income that they can afford to occasionally use the ADU for friends and family. A survey of ADU owners in three Pacific Northwest cities with mature ADU and short-term rental markets found that 60 percent of ADUs are used for long-term housing as compared with 12 percent for short-term rentals. Respondents shared that they “greatly value the ability to use an ADU flexibly.” For instance, an ADU can be rented nightly to tourists, then someday rented to a long-term tenant, then used to house an aging parent. ADUs intended primarily for visting family are sometimes used as short-term rentals between visits. Cities concerned about short-term rentals can regulate them across all housing types. Doing so might mean that special rules are not needed. An approach employed in Portland, Oregon, is to treat ADUs the same as other residences except that any financial incentives (such as fee waivers) to create them are available only if the property owner agrees not to use the ADU as a short-term rental for at least 10 years. Requiring owner occupancy Some jurisdictions require the property owner to live on-site, either in the primary house or its ADU. This is a common way of addressing concerns that absentee landlords and their tenants will allow homes and ADUs to fall into disrepair and negatively impact the neighborhood. Owner-occupancy rules are usually implemented through a deed restriction and/or by requiring that an annual statement confirming residency be filed. Some cities go further, saying ADUs can be occupied only by family members, child- or adult-care providers, or other employees in service of the family. Owner-occupancy requirements make the financing of ADUs more difficult, just as they would if applied to single-family homes. But as ADUs have become more common, owner-occupancy restrictions have become less so, which is good. Such requirements limit the appraised value of properties with ADUs and reduce options for lenders should they need to foreclose. Enforcing owner-occupancy laws can be tricky, and the rules have been challenged in courts, sometimes successfully. However, according to a study by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, more than two-thirds of properties with ADUs are owner- occupied even without an owner- occupancy mandate. n t The zoning code of Brevard, North Carolina, a city of fewer than 10,000 residents, allows ADUs, which are referred to as “secondary dwelling units” and are allowed “within residentially-zoned, single-family and duplex lots.” The code states that such homes “shall be encouraged and designed to meet housing needs,” adding that “[s]econdary dwelling units shall be accessory and subordinate to the primary living quarters.” In the image at left, the one-story cottage is the primary dwelling. The apartment above the detached garage is the secondary dwelling. The ABCs of ADUs | AARP 17 18 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs Inside Spaces ADUs vary from studio apartment–like spaces to multi-bedroom, multi-story structures. Regardless of size, the result is a needed residence p A top floor ADU can be a suitable rental for a student or someone who travels a lot for work. ADU expert Kol Peterson grew up in a home with an attic ADU that was usually rented to law school students. “They had to walk up the primary house’s interior stairs in order to access the affordable attic unit,” he writes in Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to ADU Development. “Over the years that each of them lived there, the tenants became part of our family.” p The alcoves in the ADU area above a garage provide a light-filled work space in one, and a reading nook in the other. (See the attached ADU’s exterior on page 3.) p This studio apartment internal ADU uses a wardrobe cabinet to separate the bedroom from the living area and kitchen (seen on page 19). PH O T O S : K O I P E T E R S O N , BU I L D I N G A N A D U . C O M ( T O P ) | M E L I S S A S T A N T O N ( B O T T O M L E F T ) | B I L L Y U L M E R ( B O T T O M R I G H T ) The ABCs of ADUs | A ARP 19 p The kitchen of this internal ADU (also seen at the top of page 9 and in the bedroom image at left) has a full-sized range but a mini-refrigerator. Some ADU owners install a one- or two-burner electric cooktop and a convection microwave in lieu of an oven.PH O T O S : E L I S P E V A K , O R A N G E S P L O T , L L C ( T O P A N D B O T T O M R I G H T ) | B I L L Y U L M E R ( B O T T O M L E F T ) p As an independent living space, an ADU has its own bathroom and kitchen. Depending on the available square footage — and sometimes on the local zoning code or the property’s plumbing and utility connections — an ADU might have a full kitchen with full-sized appliances and a dining area (top) or a smaller but functional kitchenette. This interior is from the detached ADU pictured below right and on the back cover. Fun fact: A coat closet and extra kitchen shelving are built into the base of the circular staircase. In a small home, every bit of space counts! p The second story of this detached ADU is accessed by the spiral staircase shown in the image at top. The space features a bedroom and a sitting area that could be used as a nursery, office or den. A full-sized, stacked washer-dryer is hidden behind a closet door. 20 AARP | The ABCs of ADUs Top: Design and Builder: Lina Menard, Niche Consulting | Photos by Guillaume Dutilh, PhotoXplorer Bottom: Design and Builder: Benn Kovco | Photos by Jeff Freeman Photography Because tiny houses are typically built on a trailer with wheels rather than a fixed foundation, they are usually treated by zoning as recreational vehicles (RVs) or manufactured (aka mobile) homes. In Portland, Oregon, and a growing number of smaller cities, tiny houses can be legally occupied on any residentially-zoned lot. Since they’re small — typically under 400 square feet — tiny houses can fit in a space too small for an ADU. Many include a kitchen and bathroom. Some function more like a detached bedroom. A unique plus: Unlike ADUs, tiny houses can move to a new location as needed. t p “The Lucky Penny” tiny house measures 8 feet wide by 14 feet, 6 inches long and provides 100 square feet of living space. The home, which is located in the backyard of a single-family residence, features a pullout bed, a kitchenette, a shower, built-in storage, and three large windows plus a skylight to provide lots of nature light. tq ADUs are sometimes used as short-term rental units for travelers. The “Kangablue,” is one of several units at Caravan, the “world’s first tiny house hotel.” At 170 square feet, the home is the largest tiny house on the lot, located in the Cully neighborhood of Portland, Oregon. The tiny space includes a kitchen, living area, bathroom (with a shower and toilet) and a sleep loft. Just One More While not technically ADUs, tiny houses can serve a similar purpose The ABCs of ADUs A guide to Accessory Dwelling Units and how they expand housing options for people of all ages WRITTEN AND EDITED BY: Eli Spevak, Orange Splot LLC | Melissa Stanton, AARP Livable Communities ART DIRECTOR: Mimi Park, Design Park, Inc. COPY EDITOR: Don Armstrong | ART PRODUCTION: Steve Walkowiak PROJECT ADVISERS AND REVIEWERS: Danielle Arigoni, Director, Livable Communities, AARP Government Affairs Karen Chapple, Professor, University of California, Berkeley Lina Menard, Founder, Niche Consulting Heather Peters, Senior Housing and Community Development Policy Analyst, San Mateo County, California Kol Peterson, Cofounder, AccessoryDwellings.org | Owner, Accessory Dwelling Strategies LLC, Portland, Oregon Denise Pinkston, Partner, TMG Partners Harriet Tregoning, (Past) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Jake Wegmann, Assistant Professor, University of Texas at Austin COVER IMAGE CREDITS (clockwise from top left) Front: Alex Hayden | Communitecture: Architecture, Planning, Design | AccessoryDwellings.org | Melissa Stanton, AARP | AccessoryDwellings.org Back: Kol Peterson, BuildingAnADU.com | Eli Spevak, Orange Splot LLC | Schuyler Smith, Polyphon Architecture & Design, LLC A NOTE TO READERS: Many of the photographs and project examples in this publication are from Portland, Oregon, which was one of the first municipalities in the nation to allow and encourage the creation of accessory dwelling units. To learn more about ADUs — and to order or download this guide — visit AARP.org/Livable. Other useful resources include: • AccessoryDwellings.org • BuildingAnADU.com • Planning.org (the website of the American Planning Association) • And the websites of the states, cities and towns mentioned in this guide as allowing and encouraging the creation of accessory dwelling units. • An accessory dwelling unit is a small residence that shares a single-family lot with a larger primary dwelling. • As an independent living space, an ADU is self-contained, with its own kitchen or kitchenette, bathroom and living/sleeping area. (Garage apartments and backyard cottages are each a type of ADU.) • ADUs can enable homeowners to provide needed housing for their parents, adult children, grandchildren or other loved ones. • An ADU can provide older adults a way to downsize on their own property while a tenant or family member resides in the larger house. • Since homeowners can legally rent out an ADU house or apartment, ADUs are an often-essential income source. • ADUs help to improve housing affordability and diversify a community’s housing stock without changing the physical character of a neighborhood. • ADUs are a beneficial — and needed — housing option for people of all ages. Learn more about ADUs and order or download The ABCs of ADUs by visiting AARP.org/ADU __________________ Sign up for the free, weekly AARP Livable Communities e-Newsletter Be among the first to learn when AARP releases more livability guides and resources. AARP.org/LivableSubscribe D20473 DETACHED ADUDETACHED-BEDROOM ADU ABOVE-GARAGE ADU