DC PR&D contemplates standards for Accessory Dwelling Units
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — Should Accessory Dwelling Units be as large as 1,500 square feet? Should ADUs be allowed by special exception and go before the Dunn County Zoning Board of Appeals for approval in Residential-1 zoning districts?
These were a couple of the questions members of the Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee discussed at the January 18 meeting as the committee moves forward with developing standards for ADUs.
The plan is to have an ADU ordinance in place by the time the spring building season starts.
The majority of the inquiries about ADUs at Dunn County zoning involve people who would like to build an ADU on their property to accommodate family members.
An ADU would be subordinate, or smaller, than the main dwelling on the property.
The ordinance should expand the definition of ADUs so they can take on different shapes, such as tiny homes or a larger subordinate structure, that can house family members, or be rented out, or to house a caregiver, said Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee.
The ordinance should allow as much flexibility as possible. The research shows that ADUs would not be a solution to the housing shortage, but ADUs can help alleviate the housing shortage, she said.
A recent housing study for Dunn County indicates that the county will need an additional 3,000 housing units to accommodate the need for housing.
The PR&D committee must have the same picture in mind when discussing standards, said Mike Kneer, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee.
Monica Barrier, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said she agreed with Morehouse.
ADUs should not be a restricted use. They should be available for aging parents, or for children who want to live closer to their aging parents. They should be used for people with disabilities who want to live closer to family or for people who want to expand their income, perhaps as part of their retirement income, she said.
The ADU should be smaller than the main structure, and it should have equal or fewer stories than the main structure, Barrier said.
All of the requests for ADUs at the zoning office so far have been for family members, said Tracie Albrightson, Dunn County zoning specialist.
Anne Wodarczyk, Dunn County zoning administrator, said that while she expected circumstances will change in the future, “but for right now, families are the needs we are hearing.”
BOA
Morehouse asked why the Board of Adjustment should be given additional authority to approve ADUs in R-1 districts as a special exception.
Wodarczyk said she had included the standard in the draft ordinance “as a conversation starter.”
ADUs are new for Dunn County, and as time goes on, county staff will discover that there are standards that were missed, Wodarczyk said.
Including a renewal process for ADU special exceptions in R-1 will allow the BOA to deal with issues that have come up, such as the need for additional parking or concerns expressed by neighbors, she said.
Perhaps a five-year renewal requirement would be workable, so that if problems have come up, the BOA can add conditions to address those problems, Wodarczyk said.
Morehouse said she was concerned that requiring a special exception from the BOA would limit the number of ADUs in R-1 districts.
“Why not allow (ADUs) by right?” she asked.
Conditional use permits or special exceptions are for something that is normally not permitted and does not quite fit the purpose and intent of a specific zoning district, Wodarczyk said.
Barrier said she agreed with Morehouse, and that an ADU, perhaps a junior ADU of 500 square feet or smaller, should be allowed by right in R-1.
Process
Barrier asked about the process for applying for a special exception.
The applicant would fill out an application for a special exception, and zoning staff would discuss the plans with the applicant, Wodarczyk said.
The zoning office would ask for the town board’s reaction, whether approval or disapproval. Zoning staff would review the site and take photographs, and then the application would go to the BOA, she said.
Barrier wondered how developed the plans needed to be, whether applicants could supply a rough schematic drawing, or whether they would need to have blueprints.
The location and square footage would certainly be needed, but the more details, the better, so zoning staff can determine if the proposed structure would meet the standards in the ordinance, Wodarczyk said.
The standards can already be in the ordinance to establish what zoning can approve and what would need BOA approval, said Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee.
The BOA is already allowed to require a review process for any special exception approved by the BOA, Wodarczyk noted.
The town boards can make recommendations to the BOA. How often do town boards turn down a special exception? Kneer asked.
“Rarely,” Wodarczyk said.
Selling an ADU
How difficult would it be for a property owner to separate out the ADU and sell it as a separate property? asked Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D committee.
Separating an ADU from the main property would come under the county’s land division ordinance, and there would have to be a certified survey map (CSM), and it would have to be positioned on the property so it could be legally subdivided, Wodarczyk said.
Would the land division ordinance need to changed? Bjork asked.
If an ADU is close to the main residence then the required setbacks could not be maintained and it could not be legally subdivided, said Tom Carlson, Dunn County surveyor.
If the ADU was connected to the main dwelling, it could not be subdivided because it would not be able to meet the setbacks, he said.
To subdivide an ADU, it would still need to meet the zoning requirements and land division requirements for lot size and setbacks, Kneer said.
R-1 in the City of Menomonie might be a problem for subdividing, but for R-1 out in a township on several acres, subdividing probably would not be a problem, Bjork said.
Trailer houses
Although some of the houses on River Heights Road look as if they are in the City of Menomonie, they are actually in the Town of Menomonie, Kneer said.
If ADUs are permitted in R-1, a trailer house could be put on all of those lots, he said.
All regular zoning requirements would still apply, Wodarczyk said.
There would be other limitations, such as setbacks, and whether the septic system would support an ADU or whether there would be room for another septic system, she said.
Many subdivisions already have covenants that would restrict ADUs, Wodarczyk said.
What if the neighbors think an ADU would affect their property value? Bjork asked.
If ADUs were allowed by special exception in R-1, property values would be one of aspects that the BOA would consider, and the BOA could not approve the special exception if a neighbor could show that it would reduce his or property value, Wodarczyk said.
Water quality
There are hundreds of lots around the lake that are less than one acre, Kneer said.
If ADUs are opened up to all lots in R-1, there could be a problem with groundwater contamination, he said.
The water quality study and the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) studies showed that where housing is concentrated, there is a concern for water quality because of septic system contamination, Kneer said, noting that there is a need to protect the groundwater.
Kneer said he had talked to several developers about their opinions on an appropriate size for an ADU.
Bob Rosendahl, the developer for the Idella Ridge housing development, said that in his opinion, an ADU of 1,500 square feet would not be an accessory, but rather, would be the appropriate size for a house, he said.
The houses in Rosendahl’s development are all 1,500 or 1,600 square feet, and “those are nice houses,” Kneer said.
Maybe an ADU can fit on a half acre lot, “but should you,” he said.
Kneer said he was “all for” going forward with the ADU ordinance with standards that would make ADUs both “environmentally friendly and people friendly.”
Quinn said he agreed that 1,500 square feet seemed large for an accessory dwelling unit.
The Colfax Messenger/Tribune Press Reporter reporter’s house is 860 square feet. The property where it is located could certainly accommodate an ADU, but in this case, the ADU could not be 1,500 square feet because it would be larger than the existing dwelling.
At this point, it is not clear if the proposed ordinance would allow an existing structure to become the ADU if a larger structure were built on the same property, or if a subordinate structure is the only structure that can be built when a house is already located on the property.
Adequate standards
The ordinance must contain adequate standards, Morehouse said, adding she is not advocating for standards that would allow wastewater to pollute the groundwater.
On the other hand, additional exclusions makes it difficult to move forward, she said.
In view of the CAFO and water study, one acre is sufficient, or a half acre, but when housing is more concentrated, then the groundwater can become polluted, Kneer said.
Rosendahl said it would be reasonable to require one acre for two units, so that each unit would have a half an acre, he said.
The PR&D committee should look at it carefully and then go forward. The committee should compromise and “get it done,” Kneer said.
Even if there are bad developments, there should be enough regulations so that county officials are confident the result is positive, Quinn said.
The purpose of the ADU ordinance is not to solve the housing crisis, but rather, to address a need in the housing crisis for family and friends and to expand housing stock, he said.
Quinn said he got the sense that all members of the PR&D committee wanted to move forward with the ADU ordinance.
What are the next steps? he asked.
Wodarczyk said she would try to address some of the committee’s concerns and present alternatives that could be used for discussion at the next meeting.
The alternatives could include specific standards for R-1 without a special exception, she said.
The R-2 and R-3 districts, since they are already multi-family districts, do not seem to be as much of a concern for the PR&D committee, but R-1 and General Agriculture are concerns, Wodarczyk said.
At previous meetings, PR&D committee members expressed concern about preserving farmland and the rural character of the county
Quinn suggested that Wodarczyk add the suggestions for options to the proposed ordinance and then bring the proposed ordinance back to the next meeting for further discussion.
The PR&D committee meets next on February 7.
