Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995

Home

PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY APARTMENTS By: Sylvia Frolik, Zoning Administrator CASE Background: Per direction fram the Planning Commission and the City Council, Staff has prepared the following report land proposed ordinance pertaining to accessory apartments. The Planning Commission revi~wed 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 ol'dinance and a public hearing was scheduled for February 7. On February 7 the Planning Commi:~sion conducted the public hearing and because of the number of cases on the agenda and the lat ;how, tabled action on the accessory apartment case until the March meeting. A copy of the propo:edordmance' is enclosed. Observations: Staff has conduct~cl a survey, and basically Andover, Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids and Elk River 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 indicates that peol~le are living in smaller households than they did 20 or 30 years ago. There are more single people, either because they are marrying later, divorced more often, or living longer after their spouse~ die. Working women are having fewer children, and the baby boom has been followed by an efOpty-nester boom. Yet, federal dollars for affordable housing have dried up, forcing cities to sleek out inexpensive ways to augment the supply of lower cost housing in their communities. ~ 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 l~eeping more residents within established neighborhoods, cities also reduce sprawl while adding to the tax base. Communities that !allow accessory apartments typically average one conversion, from a single- family unit to a sf/pgle-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 apartmehts. Accessory apartments are the least visible because they are built within an existing home. The underused hol~sing stock is increasingly being looked at by home owners as a source of income and servica, s. Both the homeowner and the community can benefit from the presence of accessory apartments if they are carefully managed. Accessory apartments offer particular advantages to olde~ home owners. Apartment tenants can provide not only rental income but they may also provide p.~rsonal services to older homeowners in return for lower rent. Tenants can be a source of companionship and security from fear of criminal intrusion and personal accidents. In addition, buyers of new and/or existing homes may find that the installation of an accessory apartment offers tl/~em a means of meeting payments on high interest loans. The presence of an accessory apartmerlt can also help single parents to hang onto their houses in the wake of divorce or death. The mos! obvious public benefit of accessory apartments is that they offer a source of inexpensive housir~g units in the community. Accessory apartments can bring households at a variety of stages ih the life cycle into a neighborhood, reducing fluctuation and demand for services. The most frequentireason for resisting the legalization of accessory apartments is increase in parking and traffic qongestion. Studies indicate that parking problems are generally not created by accessory apartmehts but are the result of residents using garages for storage and not for automobiles. In a~tdition, most neighborhoods reach peak population density and peak car #¢ 17