While I support the purpose and aims of the ADU ordinance, I would urge the council to only accept options which would require owner occupancy and possibly also the 20% code.

Northfield does indeed need more affordable housing. However, it does not need more of the sub-standard rental units and other issues that existed before the rental code went into effect. Allowing for ADU's without some constraints could lead to the recurrence of some of the same problems the current rental code has solved. The code provides needed guidelines for rental units in the city and has resulted in markedly improved conditions for both tenants and neighbors. I live near multiple rental properties, know both tenants and property owners, and have seen this improvement first hard.

Enacting the ADU ordinance with some restrictions on owner occupancy and the 20% rental code limit allows for more housing while providing some reasonable limits to help support our beloved and historic neighborhoods.

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 E (this is a change from my comments sent last week. Option E was not an Option last week).

However, to allow for even more housing options, I would REALLY like to see Option E with an addition that allows for a “no owner occupied” rental if the building owner is in good standing with the city. Example of text to add:

2.10.4(B)(2) Rental requires either the owner of the principal building on the property to reside on the property or if the building owner does not reside on the property the building owner must be in good standing with the city.

Thanks again for all you do.

I urge the City Council to pass the ADU ordinance as a first step in creating more affordable housing in Northfield. Housing at all levels of income is in short supply in Northfield, especially rentals, so businesses and the colleges lose good candidates, or people decide to commute. ADUs are also good environmentally in helping to make Northfield housing a little more dense. Please pass Option C (with the possible change to making the primary home owner occupied), and then set up a task force to review the rest of the rental ordinance. We need to allow ADUs to go through soon as one avenue for more affordable housing, since the larger rental ordinance review will take time.

I support revising the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. Affordable housing, particularly workforce housing, is in high demand in Northfield. But little is available. I support allowing church congregations to add an ADU to church property. Faith communities have long been active in solving this issue.I also think that the 20% restriction in rentals should be waived. The only way that we are going to solve the affordable housing problem is to increase density. While it may not be supported by some in our community, higher density can be done in a smart manner -- revising the ADU regulations is a step in that direction. Option C seems to be the preferred option to reach that goal.

I urge the city council to support the ADU ordinance. Northfield is one of the most expensive cities in Minnesota, and supporting ADUs would go a long way toward making the city more affordable for all its residents.

Please support the ADU Ordinance, option C. Affordable housing is a key component of the Northfield Strategic Plan.

We relocated here for my husband to accept a job as a professor, and were surprised at the high housing costs. We had a difficult time finding a home. There were absolutely no quality rentals for our family of five, which includes three children and four pets. We were uncertain if we could accept the job, but found a home at the last minute. Often, young families do not have the means for a mortgage, so the need for rentals is key, for Northfield to continue attracting workers.

A low vacancy rate like Northfield's can adversely impact low income tenants, who may be faced with substandard housing conditions, or retaliatory behavior by landlords when they make reasonable requests.

Northfield needs to increase quality housing supply. Passing this ADU Ordinance is a first step.
Shannon Farrand-Bernardin

Option E: My experience after having an ADU for 7 months has been positive. Having the ADU on an owner-occupied lot helps assure good maintenance of sidewalks in winter and vegetation during the summer. The financial savings of paying one meter fee for water, sewer, garbage, recycling, gas, electricity and internet are significant and double the efficiency of the utility distribution systems.

(My original comment- there is no need to re-read it at the next meeting unless necessary.)

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.

Option E: As a current ADU owner (as of 2018) I support residential infill with ADUs, provided they are on lots that are owner-occupied. However, I do not understand the parking exemption. If parking on the lot is not available, where do the ADU residents park their car?

Margit Johnson, 613 Union Street

While I fully support the goals of this legislation, this ordinance - especially option C - is FAR too open ended. There are many more specific ways to support affordable housing in Northfield. This plan essentially opens up all areas of the city to new rental / air bnb construction or permanent RV parking with no regulation outside of basic code compliance and a 1000sq ft limit. There is nothing here to mandate affordability or regulate use or construction type. PLEASE STEP BACK and reconsider more specific legislation - this kind of shotgun approach is frightening.

I would like to express my support of the planning commissions recommendation which is option C to revise the ADU ordinance. Waive the 20% rule and rental parking requirement and allows rental properties to add a ADU. Affordable housing is currently in crisis in Northfield. It's time to take concrete actions to allow more housing options, lifting the 20% rule restriction so home owners and faith communities can move forward. Land is expensive and scarce in our city which makes affordable housing rare. If we really want to be a "welcoming community" we will have to take bold actions to provide affordable housing and this revision does that. I ask you to support the revisions proposed in Option C.

Please vote in favor of the revision to the ADU ordinance--I think it is Option C.

I support the waiver of the 20% rule. Council years ago voted in the restriction after a few home owners objected to the behavior of college students, in effect punishing the poor, working poor, workers who must now work here and live in Faribault. Instead, the colleges and students should have been held accountable.
I support churches building ADUs on their property. Last week when temperatures plummeted to 30 below, we frantically searched for emergency shelter. We activated our Sanctuary home network. The churches could provide such shelter.
The long-range plan promises more affordable housing. $250,000 homes are not affordable. $1500/mo. rent is not affordable.

Are you going to do this or not?
Olivia Frey
401 Highland Ave.