Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 09-03-205 Carmel Plan Commission RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE Thursday, September 3, 2020 Department Report 2. Docket No. 19090013 OA: Accessory Dwelling Ordinance Standards. The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to establish standards and minimum requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units and to amend definitions. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. *Updates to the Dept. Report are written in blue. Project Overview: Please view the informational packet for the proposed ordinance and details of the revisions. The purpose of this proposal is to amend the UDO regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Group Homes. In summary, the revised ordinance proposes the following: 1. Require BZA Special Use approval of detached accessory dwellings, allow attached accessory dwelling units by right in residential zoning districts. 2. Establishes standards for accessory dwelling units for those adding an accessory dwelling to their property. Revised. 3. Requires 20% of new lots developed in new subdivisions (10 or more lots of 1 acre or less in size) to include an accessory dwelling. 4. Revises definitions related to Group Homes to include quantities and remove outdated references to Indiana Code. Requires BZA Special Exception approval of Group Homes with 6 or more occupants. Also establishes Group Home standards and criteria for consideration. Why Accessory Dwellings? The need to offer a variety of housing options has long been a topic of discussion in city planning. By all measures, Carmel has been experiencing rapid housing growth for the last 50 years; most of which has been developed in the form of single-family detached houses. Over the last 20 years, Carmel has also been a successful market for other housing types with the addition of townhomes, condominiums and apartments into the mix. With continued housing demand, rising costs and a shrinking supply of land to develop, we believe it is time to adjust our strategy to continue to meet the needs and preferences of residents. Identifying and, where possible, removing zoning barriers to the construction of accessory dwelling units is a logical next step. Also known as granny flats, carriage houses or in-law suites, accessory dwellings are independent living units which are either attached to, within, or located on the same lot as a single-family home. They are flexible in size and configuration and are more affordable for young couples who want a small footprint or for seniors looking to downsize and remain in their neighborhoods. They can also provide a source of financial stability for homeowners to stay in their houses or rent out the main house – making aging in place possible. In short, accessory dwellings can be a solution to high housing costs, limited developable land, and demand for multigenerational living. With carefully crafted standards, they can be built discreetly into the character of new and existing neighborhoods while making efficient use of existing street and utility infrastructure that is so costly for new developments. Resources: There is abundant research and numerous articles available regarding accessory dwellings. Here are a few resources that the Department found to be particularly helpful, including a 2018 study of housing and the future workforce in Central Indiana: • AARP: The ABCs of ADUs and All About Accessory Dwelling Units • National Association of Home Builders (NAHB): What is the “Missing Middle of Housing? and Yes, In My Backyard • MIBOR Realtor Association: Coming Up Short: Housing the Region’s Future Workforce. Some may recall representatives of MIBOR presented the highlights of this study in 2019 at a Dialogue Dinner held at Fire Station 45. Revisions to the ADU standards in Article 5: As outlined in the information packet, several revisions were made to Section 5.02 (Page 4) based on Committee feedback. Those revisions include limiting ground floor area of detached ADUs to the size of the principal building, adding language to prohibit the conversion of an attached garage unless that parking can be replaced, adding a foundation requirement for detached ADUs which also prohibits basements, and deleting the requirement that only one mailbox is visible from the street. However, there were a couple of discussion points that were not revised in this draft – reducing the 1,300-sf maximum ground floor area of a detached ADU, and the requirement of additional parking. Both points were considered carefully but were not revised in the standards because of the proposed requirement for BZA Special Use approval of detached ADUs. This review will allow more case-by-case scrutiny of the proposed size and parking situation within each site’s context. 6 June 16 Plan Commission Meeting Recap: Staff presented an overview of the proposed ordinance amendment and described what an accessory dwelling is and the many forms they could be constructed, whether within, attached to or located on the same lot as a single-family home. Staff also summarized the rapid housing growth in Carmel over the last 50 years, noting that even though single-family detached houses have made up the majority of the new housing options, other types of housing, such as townhomes, condominiums and additional apartments have also been introduced into the market. The amendments were then summarized based on the purpose of each Article affected in the UDO, and additional clarification was discussed regarding the amended definitions relating to Group Homes. Finally, staff re-iterated ADUs as an option to help offset high housing costs and limited developable land, particularly because they can be discreetly built into the character of new and existing neighborhoods while also making efficient use of existing infrastructure. Three letters from the public were received and acknowledged; one in favor (Andrea Davis/HAND, Inc.), and two opposed (BAGI and a citizen). Plan Commission members had several questions, including if/how setbacks and district standards would be applied, whether this ordinance would supersede subdivision covenants, and how utility capacities may be affected. Members also expressed concerns, including the potential effect on existing neighborhoods, limiting consumer choice by requiring ADUs in new subdivisions, and potential unintended consequences of requiring ADUs such as increased costs, increased proposed lot sizes to avoid the requirements and the location of new developments further away from walkable areas. The Plan Commission forwarded this item to the Residential Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 7, 2020, with the final voting/recommendation authority returning to the full Plan Commission. July 7 Residential Committee Meeting Recap: The Committee set a time limit of 45 minutes for discussion. Staff acknowledged two additional letters from the public; one Kate Collins (BAGI) with additional questions, and the other from Dee Fox & Jill Meisenheimer. An article titled “Beyond Nursing Homes,” was also distributed prior to the meeting. Staff also answered some questions that were either raised at the initial public hearing in June, or in the letters. Finally, given the number of topics proposed in the ordinance, staff outlined a suggested order of review, beginning with the proposed ADU standards. The Committee had questions including property taxation, and any accounting of the number of subdivision covenants that would allow ADUs. After further discussion, the Committee began review of the proposed ADU standards proposed in Article 5, and the established time limit was reached. The item was continued to the August Residential Committee meeting. August 4 Residential Committee Meeting Recap: The Committee set a time limit of 45 minutes for discussion. Review of the ordinance picked up review of the proposed ADU standards where discussion left off in July. As a result of discussion, the Committee requested further information or revisions including, smaller ground floor area for detached ADUs, prohibition of the conversion of attached garages to ADUs, parking, mailboxes, and basements for detached ADUs. Discussion then moved on to Group Homes, where John Molitor presented the rationale of the proposed definition revisions in the context of a 2018 federal court decision. John also answered questions regarding subdivision covenants and the perception that group homes function as a commercial use in neighborhoods. Staff will draft revisions to the proposal that establishes separate standards for group homes, in addition to the revised definitions. Once the established time limit was reached the item was continued to the September Residential Committee meeting. Recommendation: The Department of Community Services recommends the Residential Committee again set a time limit for this item and continue with review of the proposed ordinance in the following order, as time allows: Accessory Dwellings 1. Article 2: The differentiation of detached vs attached ADUs, with detached requiring Special Use approval by a BZA Hearing Officer. See also the associated filing fees in Article 1. 2. Article 5: Review newly revised standards for ADUs for those adding an accessory dwelling to their property. 3. Article 7: Requires 20% of new lots developed in new subdivisions (10 or more lots, 1 acre or less) to include an ADU. Group Homes 4. Article 11: Review newly revised definitions related to Group Homes to include quantities, remove references to Indiana Code. 5. Article 2: The requirement of group homes (now defined as more than 6 occupants) to get BZA Special Exception approval by a BZA Hearing Officer. See also the associated filing fees in Article 1. 6. Articles 5 & 9: Use-specific standards for Group Homes, and the addition of Group Homes to the Special Exception process. Topics not reviewed within the established time limit should be continued to the October Residential Committee meeting for review and discussion, if needed. Otherwise, the Department of Community Services recommends forwarding this item back to the Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation.