Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 11-05-201 Carmel Plan Commission RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE Thursday, November 5, 2020 Department Report 1. Docket No. 19090013b 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. 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. 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, definition and proposed ordinance effective date: As outlined in the information packet, several revisions were made to Section 5.02 (starting on Page 4) based on Committee feedback. Those revisions include the addition of a clear limit of 1 ADU per lot, adding a reference to the Short Term Rental section of the UDO, further limiting the maximum size of a detached ADU to 75% of the ground floor area of the home, revising the limitations on garage conversions, and specifying that the BZA Hearing Officer can ask for commitments regarding the lease terms. The definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit on Page 6 has also been revised to further define what would be considered attached for purposes of determining if Special Use approval is necessary. Finally, an extension of the effective date to May 1, 2021 has been proposed. 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 2 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. September 3 Residential Committee Meeting Recap: The Committee separated the Group Homes portion of the proposal from Accessory Dwellings, and spent the meeting discussing Group Homes. The proposed Accessory Dwelling standards were continued to the October Residential Committee meeting. October 6 Residential Committee Meeting Recap: The Committee set a time limit of 45 minutes for discussion. Staff addressed general questions relating to the purpose of the ordinance as well as the ability of an owner’s association to adopt new covenants. Staff then began presenting the revisions to the ordinance since the August meeting. Questions were answered regarding the differences in types of BZA approvals and staff indicated plans to put a clear limit of one ADU per lot and to better-define attached vs. detached ADUs. The Committee requested additional revisions for the next meeting regarding the ground floor area and garage conversions. The Committee also requested that staff explore minimum limits on rental lease terms, expressing potential concern with rentals of less than 6 months at a time. Finally, staff stated that the proposed effective date of January 1, 2021 is now impractical, and that a new effective date would be proposed next month. The proposed Accessory Dwelling standards were continued to the November Residential Committee meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends beginning discussion with the revisions from last month, then moving discussion to Article 7 regarding requirements in new subdivisions. Once questions and concerns have been addressed, the Department of Community Services recommends forwarding this item back to the Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation.