City of Northfiel...
  • Sign In

Meeting: City Council on 2019-02-05 6:00 PM

Meeting Time: February 05, 2019 at 6:00pm CST
Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

11. Ord. 1000 Consider Ordinance revising Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations in Chapter 34 - Land Development Code

Legislation Text 1 - Option A - ADU Ord with owner occupied, exempt from parking, but not exempt from 20% rule 2 - Option B - ADU Ord with no owner occupied, exempt from parking, but not exempt from 20% rule 3 - Option C - ADU Ord with no owner occupied, exempt from parking, and exempt from 20% rule 4 - Option D - ADU Ord given first reading (NOT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL) 5 - DRAFT 01-17-19 PC Meeting Minutes - ADU 6 - Planning Commission ADU Explainer 7 - ADU letter from AFN 8 - ARTICLE_III.___RENTAL_HOUSING 9 - Zoning maps 10 - ADU Presentation 2-5-18
3 Public Comments
  • Default_avatar
    Christine Sartor over 6 years ago

    Greetings City Council!

    I write today to whole-heartedly support Item 11 on tonight’s agenda, but, with option C to state “OWNER-OCCUPIED”. I also am in support of striking the elitist 20% rule from the entire town of Northfield. The earth cannot withstand more and more sprawl and the resources required to sustain it.

    I support ADUs/Tiny Houses to address the urgent needs of Northfield citizens for the following uses (as rental or non-rental):

    1) Low-income housing
    2) Single-parent housing
    3) Homeless housing (especially youth in winter)
    4) Special needs housing (a dire and urgent need in Northfield)
    5) Transition housing (churches most likely)
    6) Elderly parents/friends/family/child housing

    I ardently OPPOSE the use of the ADUs/Tiny Houses for the purpose of:

    ***College student housing***

    ALSO, in a very near future ordinance, I would like to see Tiny House multi-family villages allowed on empty lots.

  • Default_avatar
    Carla Hansen over 6 years ago

    Thank you all for your hard work on revising the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. Revising these regulations will provide more affordable and diverse housing options in Northfield. Also, revising these regulations promotes the economical use of existing infrastructure and is a remedy to limit urban sprawl.

    I am most in favor of Option C (described on the PPT presentation), but would favor changing the proposed regulation text to say “owner-occupied.”

    I could live with Option C if the proposed regulation stated that rental would be allowed only if the property owner of the principal building were in good standing with the city. An example follows:

    "An accessory dwelling unit may be rented if it complies with the Northfield Municipal Code, chapter 14, and if the property owner of the principal building is in good standing with the city."

    Thanks again for all you do!

  • Default_avatar
    Alice Thomas over 6 years ago

    I have sent a longer statement via e-mail to all Council members explaining why I could support Option A with some revisions that would 1) revise the mass and height regulations for more proportionality between the ADU and the main dwelling and 2) some plans for addressing the parking consequences.

    I do support using ADUs as a way to address higher density and more low income housing but I do not believe that the plans for the consequences of the current regulations as proposed have been adequately acknowledged and addressed. Options B and C are even more problematic.