Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/1995

Home

PROP~ )SED REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY APARTMENTS By: Sylvia Frolik, Zoning Administrator # q Background: Per direction frem the Planning Commission and the City Council, Staff has prepared the following report and proposed ordinance pertaining to accessory apartments. The Planning Commission revi~iwed this report and the proposed ordinance at their regular meeting in January. As a result of that meeting and some comments from the audience, some minor changes were made to the proposed ot finance and a public hearing was scheduled for this evening. The most recent vlsrsion of the proposed ordinance is enclosed. Observations: indicates that peo more single peopl after their spouses followed by an et forcing cities to st communities. Staff has conduct~l a survey, and basically Andover, Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids and Elk tLiver are currently doir~g the same as Ramsey. There is nothing in the codes to prevent boarders and roommates, and For lack of regulations, accessory apartments are prohibited. The census data lie are living in smaller households than they did 20 or 30 years ago. There are e,, either because they are marrying later, divorced more often, or living longer die. Working women are having fewer children, and the baby boom has been npty-nester boom. Yet, federal dollars for affordable housing have dried up, '.ek out inexpensive ways to augment the supply of lower cost housing in their Accessory apartm'~nts add affordable housing stock without dramatically changing the nature of neighborhoods, while keeping the dream of home ownership alive even when housing costs seem prohibitive. By keeping more residents within established neighborhoods, cities also reduce sprawl while addi4g to the tax base. Communities thatl allow accessory apartments typically average one conversion, from a single- family unit to a slngle-family unit with an accessory apartment, yearly for every 1,000 single family homes. There is no known example of a community that has reversed its decision to permit accessory apartme4ats. Accessory apartments are the least visible because they are built within an existing home. ~ The underused hqusing stock is increasingly being looked at by home owners as a source of income and services. Both the homeowner and the community can benefit from the presence of accessory apartm{nts if they are carefully managed. Accessory apartments offer particular advantages to oldel~ home owners. Apartment tenants can provide not only rental income but they may also provide gersonal services to older homeowners in return for lower rent. Tenants can be a source of companibnship and security from fear of criminal intrusion and personal accidents. In addition, buyers 4f new and/or existing homes may find that the installation of an accessory apartment offers tt~em a means of meeting payments on high interest loans. The presence of an accessory apartment can also help single parents to hang onto their houses in the wake of divorce or death. The mos[t obvious public benefit of accessory apartments is that they offer a source of inexpensive housing units in the community..Accessory apartments can bring households at a vari.ety of stages ~n the life cycle into a neighborhood, reducing fluctuation and .demand for services. The most frequent reason for resisting the legalization of accessory &partments is increase in parking and traffic ~ongestion. Studies indicate that parking problems are generally not created by accessory apartmjnts but are the result of residents using garages for storage and not for automobiles. In addition, most neighborhoods reach peak population density and peak car ownership levels a,bout 20 years after they are built. At that time, the homes are full of teenagers