Dunn County PR&D coming closer to final draft of ADU ordinance
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 — With the latest discussion focusing on design standards, size and location, the Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee is coming closer to a final draft of an Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance.
The PR&D committee determined at the February 7 meeting that the committee would hold a public hearing on the draft ADU ordinance at the March 7 meeting.
Design standards and location were added to the draft ordinance since the last PR&D meeting, said Anne Wodarczyk, Dunn County zoning administrator, at the February 7 meeting.
The design standards include matching the architectural design of the primary structure and using materials that are of equal or better quality than the materials used to build the primary structure, she said.
Wodarczyk said she had added design standards that are common in other ADU ordinances.
The location, that the ADU would be on the same lot as the primary dwelling, would help the structure fit in with the neighborhoods, especially in Residential-1 zoning, she said.
Mike Kneer, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said he was under the impression that an ADU would automatically be on the same lot as the primary dwelling.
Adding the specification that the ADU is on the same lot is being very specific to make sure that the ADU is located on the same lot, Wodarczyk said.
Design standard
Monica Barrier, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, asked for Wodarczyk’s opinion on the design standard.
Wodarczyk said she had added the design standard so that PR&D committee members would discuss the issue.
Design standards can “be tricky,” she said.
“I could end up being the judge on the aesthetic features of the house,” Wodarczyk said.
The zoning administrator would make decisions on what was acceptable for design if the ADUs are allowed by right and do not have to go through a special exception hearing.
Wodarczyk said in her opinion, the design standards should either more specific, or there should be no restrictions.
Wodarczyk previously worked in St. Croix County and noted that there were restrictions for houses being built in the St. Croix County National Scenic Riverway specifying that the houses would be “natural colors.”
The truth is that all colors are present in nature somewhere, she said.
St. Croix County had a color chart of acceptable colors, but then people would want to build white houses, and white was not one of the options. People also sometimes wanted black houses, and black would blend in well with the landscape, but black was not an option, either, Wodarczyk said, adding that in her opinion, “I think it is up to the property owner what they want their house to look like.”
The more criteria and the more specifics that are in the ordinance, the more it becomes “nitpicking,” and would be “inhibiting the ability of the property owner to have an ADU,” said Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee.
Barrier said she had been doing some research on “tiny homes” and had found some plans that would produce a nice-looking ADU that would fit in well in her own neighborhood in Menomonie.
Trailer houses
The design standards seem as if they are intended to limit trailer houses, Kneer said.
More specific design standards seems like they would be more of a covenant for building in a subdivision rather than a zoning restriction, Wodarczyk said.
Some of the ADU ordinances that were reviewed come right out and say trailer houses are not allowed, and some of the ordinances intentionally make it possible to have trailer houses as ADUs, she said.
It might be helpful to think “what would we allow for a normal home and then that should be applied to ADUs,” Wodarczyk said.
Language could be included in the ADU ordinance if the PR&D committee is interested in not allowing trailer houses, she said.
Kneer said he was not at all interested in including language that would eliminate trailer houses but that it was a good subject to discuss.
Would the ordinance prohibit recreational vehicles as ADUs or modified recreational vehicles? he asked.
Dunn County already has some regulations on recreational vehicles, Wodarczyk said, adding that she did not know if recreational vehicles would be able to obtain Universal Dwelling Code (UDC) approval.
One part of the draft ordinance states that the ADU must be in compliance with building codes, which would likely eliminate RVs, she said.
Dunn County’s ordinances allow recreational vehicles to be used on a property for only 180 days out of the year and does not allow RVs as permanent homes, Wodarczyk said.
99 percent
The draft ordinance states the ADU can be up to 99 percent of the size of the primary dwelling, said Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D committee.
Bjork said he was under the impression the ADU was supposed to be subordinate to the primary dwelling, but at 99 percent of the size, it would be difficult to tell the difference between the primary dwelling and the ADU, he said.
Subordinate had not been defined previously, and subordinate is smaller than the primary dwelling, Wodarczyk said.
The PR&D committee could apply a different percentage, she said.
County zoning
During the last rewrite of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, the townships made their own maps for General Agriculture and R-1, so could they opt out of county zoning now? Bjork asked.
The ADU ordinance would be a major change in the zoning ordinance, so would this present an opportunity for the townships to get out of county zoning, he wondered.
The PR&D committee has not made a concrete decision that ADUs are allowed in R-1 zoning or how they are allowed, Wodarczyk said.
The changes to a zoning ordinance that would allow townships to join or exit county zoning must be a complete rewrite of the comprehensive zoning code and not merely adding a section to the zoning code, she said.
Wodarczyk noted that there is currently proposed legislation in front of the state Legislature to allow more flexibility for townships to come in and out of county zoning, and the proposal is for townships to have an option every five years.
Townships could also have their own ADU ordinances and could be more restrictive than the country’s ordinance, Wodarczyk said.
GA and R1
In some places, ADUs would be appropriate in GA and R-1, Bjork said.
The ADUs should be a special exception so that the town boards have more to say on whether it should be a special exception or whether it should be considered for a rezone, and then it could go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for approval if it is a special exception, he said.
If the ADUs are allowed as a special exception, then applications could go to the BOA for considerations, and the BOA can apply additional standards that are site-specific, Wodarczyk said.
A special exception would allow more interaction with the town board, Bjork said.
The draft ordinance states that the ADU must be within 300 feet of the primary dwelling, but what if there is something about a specific site that would not allow the ADU to be within 300 feet? Barrier asked.
If the 300 feet is put into the ordinance, then in that case, a variance would be required. A variance requires three criteria be met, and hardship is one of the three criteria, Wodarczyk said.
Attached or not
Considering attached ADUs, people can build them now, and the county cannot really control it because it is someone who is putting an addition onto their house, Kneer said.
If a rule is made that cannot be enforced, then it is a useless rule, he said, adding that he has no problem with attached ADUs.
Kneer said he did have concerns about the standards for detached ADUs.
If a house is located on one-third of an acre, or a half acre or three-quarters of an acre, then those lots would be grandfathered in to put a 1,500 square foot ADU if it can fit on the lot, he said.
The same criteria that the county has used for years should apply that the minimum lot size is one acre, Kneer said.
The concerns about putting ADUs on small lots are especially appropriate around Tainter Lake, he said, noting that here are hundreds of lots around the lake.
There are already problems with small, substandard lots around the lake and with impervious surfaces adding to the run-off into the lake. A 1,500 square foot dwelling is a house, Kneer said.
If you ask people what they think a mother-in-law house is, people will say it is a dwelling for one or two people. A 1,500 square foot house will accommodate more than one or two people, he said.
An 800 square foot house can have two or three bedrooms, a bathroom, a living room and a kitchen, Kneer said.
The ADUs are not supposed to be starter homes. They are supposed to be homes for the parents, he said.
300 feet
Does the standard that the ADU must be within 300 feet of the primary dwelling address those concerns about small lots? asked Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee.
The 300 feet keeps the ADU close to the primary dwelling, Wodarczyk said.
If someone has a 40-acre parcel, the 300 foot requirement eliminates someone having a house in one corner of the 40 acres and building an ADU across the 40 acres in another corner, she said.
It would not be an accessory dwelling if it was in opposite corners of a 40-acre parcel, Wodarczyk said
The ADU ordinance is not a way to skirt the zoning ordinance and build another house on your property, she said.
Intentions
ADUs are intended to help people age in place and to stay living in the same area, using the same driveway, the same electrical hookup, and maybe the same septic or an expansion of the septic, Wodarczyk said.
The lot where an ADU will be placed must have room for the septic. A minimum lot size was discussed at one point, she said.
A 1,500 square foot dwelling is the size of a standard mobile home, Wodarczyk said.
Morehouse said most of the concerns expressed are addressed by the proposed ordinance.
There will not be 600 ADUs built around the lake, she said, adding that she was comfortable with the design standards.
R-1-A
Kneer suggested the possibility of having a new zoning designation for ADUs of R-1-A.
The townships could have their own criteria for people asking for the R-1-A rezone, and then the process would not have to go through the Board of Adjustment, he said.
A new zoning designation would give the townships control. The Town of Grant is very different from the Town of Tainter and the Town of Menomonie, which have much higher populations, Kneer said.
Then the townships could decide, based on what they have, whether they want ADUs to be on an acre or a half acre, he said.
For sale
If there are ADUs, there is no doubt that at some point in the future, maybe in 20 years, the ADU will be sold as separate property, Bjork said.
How would that work selling the ADU as a separate property if the ADU shares a septic, water and electricity? Would the ADU be sold as a condominium? he asked.
Under the proposed standards, a deed restriction would be required that prohibits the sale of the ADU unless the property can be legally subdivided, Wodarczyk said
The property owner would have to go through the certified survey map (CSM) process to put the ADU on a separate property, and the property owner would be required to have an agreement for a septic easement or other easements, Wodarczyk said.
Dividing the ADU so it is on a separate property would be completely the property owner’s responsibility, she said.
The deed restriction also would prohibit the ADU from being sold as a condominium, Wodarczyk said.
Lake concerns
Quinn asked Kneer to elaborate on his concerns about ADUs around the lake.
There are so many substandard lots around Tainter Lake, Kneer said.
The PR&D committee has made many exceptions over the years to fit septics onto a lot, he said.
On some lots there was technically enough room for a septic, but when there are concentrated septics in an area, the concentrated septics damage the groundwater, Kneer said.
The problems around the lake are the septics, mowing and impervious surfaces, and ADUs would increase the problems, he said.
The Tainter Lake Rehabilitation District was just started, and ADUs would compound the problems the Lake District is trying to address, Kneer said.
An ADU would have the same setbacks as a primary dwelling. In shoreland zoning, there is a 75-foot setback from the water, Wodarczyk said.
The existing restrictions will prevent many ADUs, she said.
1,000 square feet
Kneer said that perhaps 1,000 square feet would be appropriate size restriction for ADUs in R-1 zoning.
Maybe there should be separate size restrictions for different zoning districts, he said.
Barrier said she would be happy with a 1,000 square foot restriction but that 500 square feet would be too small.
There were “a whole bunch of reasons” for the one acre minimum lot size, so a smaller size for the ADU and the one-acre minimum lot size would address many of the concerns, Kneer said.
If there are too many restrictions that are not necessary, then it will be more difficult to have an ADU, Morehouse said.
A 1,000 square foot restriction would make sense, and it would work for a small family and would not impinge on a neighborhood, Quinn said.
Quinn asked Wodarczyk for her recommendations.
Wodarczyk said what she had been hearing from the PR&D committee is that they would like options for size restrictions and to remove the design standards from the proposed ordinance.
There also should be consideration of restricting the location to not be in the front yard or else leave it open to the property owner, she said.
The PR&D committee could continue discussing the ADU ordinance for months, Morehouse said.
A zoning text amendment should be brought to the PR&D committee for an up or down vote, she said.
Wodarczyk should take the suggestions from the PR&D committee and bring a more refined draft of the ordinance back to the committee for review.
The PR&D committee also agreed to have a public hearing on the proposed ordinance at the committee’s March 7 meeting.
The PR&D committee is expected to continue discussing the draft ordinance at the February 21 meeting, and public comments are always welcome.
