Accessory Dwelling Units

[xandrex]

^I have to wonder if the fee would actually be so high? Since this is presumably not considered a single-family, free-standing residence, wouldn't it be prorated (which the Met Council apparently does for all non-SFH SAC fees)?

Regardless, I think we're only going to see a handful of these things pop up in the first few years. I think Minneapolitans will need to ease into it. Haha.

[mattaudio]

Some things that could help jumpstart:
-An ADU manual like what Vancouver has
-Low/no interest loans tied to affordable housing benchmarks

[RailBaronYarr]

Oof, I mixed up the SAC with the Direct Connection to an interceptor fee. SACs are significantly higher: http://www.metrocouncil.org/Wastewater- ... arges.aspx More infor here

For 2015, the base unit (SFH) costs $2,485. They give a 20% discount to multifamily buildings with more than 4 units (but only if they don't have an individual laundry combo in-unit?), so it seems like an ADU would qualify for the full deal. Sigh.

[mattaudio]

Shouldn't we differentiate between development that require last-mile sewer/water extension, and development that makes better use of our existing infrastructure base? This seems completely backwards.

[MNdible]

Well, at the end of the day, it's all required processing capacity at the end of the pipe (treatment plant). Not 100% sure, but I think typically new developments have to pay the physical costs associated with extending their infrastructure.

[David Greene]

To be honest, when you're doing a $60,000+ project, another $3,000 isn't that big of a deal.

[RailBaronYarr]

Well, at the end of the day, it's all required processing capacity at the end of the pipe (treatment plant). Not 100% sure, but I think typically new developments have to pay the physical costs associated with extending their infrastructure.

Somewhere in the Met Council sewage-specific budget shows the breakdown of spend. My work computer is a steaming pile and can't handle large pdfs without quitting on me. I believe ~48% of the spend is on debt retirement, of which most of that comes from system expansion. SACs in existing areas, Minneapolis chief among them but also new infill in older burbs, represent a huge portion of sewage revenues. I'm not 100% sure, but service charges seemed to basically cover operational costs at the treatment plants. They're allocated to each city as a % of total gallons used (which may actually favor less dense development since pumping costs are higher per gallon used the further you are from plants).

All this is to say that even if you believe new infra pays for itself in raw dollars (ignoring the costs we're now all burdened with as a region for replacement/maintenance), if the Met Council really believed in encouraging infill in walkable areas served by their own transit system, you'd think they'd show that somehow in the SAC charges.

EDIT: I took a chance and got the numbers:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/Wastewater- ... udget.aspx
http://www.metrocouncil.org/METC/files/ ... 99c522.pdf Pgs B1-B6

44% of expenses is debt retirement, not 48%. I should have also been more clear, the debt taken on is only 12% for expansion, but the 83% spent on "preservation" is a huge chunk taken on to repair/maintain the stuff serving low density areas from one generation ago. Yes, most of the costs of the pipes are covered by the developers and rolled into mortgages, but the next time it needs rehab we're paying for it with a slush fund of wastewater charges and new development SACs (the urban ones transferring to the less dense areas).

[twincitizen]

I'm fairly certain the Minneapolis City Council (veterans anyways) are well aware they (by extension of new businesses & developments) are getting completely hosed on this. I cannot recall the context, perhaps something to do with a Thrive 2040 presentation some time ago, but I do remember being impressed that Barb Johnson and Kevin Reich were definitely aware of the problem. You have to imagine that Met Council staff are aware as well, but I'm not sure anything has changed, or will change. Even if they could make some slight tweaks to those formulas to make urban infill more affordable, I think that would have a pretty big impact. At the very least it would raise the cost of building more stuff on the fringe.

[RailBaronYarr]

^^ http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 79661.html is an example of them bringing it up.

Steering this back to ADUs (entirely my fault), David is right. On the whole $3k isn't much on an $85k ADU (the average cost of building one in Portland, I believe). But it seems like rules preventing you from tying into the houses main sewer line plus this fee make for somewhere between $6-8k extra compared to what you'd otherwise pay.

I also think the city would do well to offer up some low-interest (though not crazy low) revolving loan fund to get these going along with some great design guidelines. We'll see what staff does once this gets to the full council.

[mattaudio]

http://danwhittaker.com/tea/mod/HTML/sld066.htm

[David Greene]

This was quite common during the depression. Census records show that the owners of our house had a renter in the '30's. He may have lived in the basement because there's a walk-up/out door to the outside and an old nasty-as-hell shower down there.

[twincitizen]

Hey, can anyone help me understand a particular requirement in the ADU ordinance? It would be best if you have the actual answer, but I'll accept educated guesses too.

What is the purpose in requiring a detached ADU to maintain a 20' separation from the principal dwelling?

At first it made sense to me, as it would keep ADUs toward the rear of the lot, ensuring that ADU/garage windows would not line up with a neighbor's principal dwelling. But thinking about it more in context, all houses in Minneapolis are pretty close together anyways. Assuming 5' side setbacks for two neighboring principal dwellings, many existing houses are just 10' apart, if not less due to other quirks and oddities. So then why require the ADU to be set back 20' from the principal dwelling? Is it just to keep ADUs at the rear of the lot? If so, why?

[RailBaronYarr]

Hey, can anyone help me understand a particular requirement in the ADU ordinance? It would be best if you have the actual answer, but I'll accept educated guesses too.

What is the purpose in requiring a detached ADU to maintain a 20' separation from the principal dwelling?

At first it made sense to me, as it would keep ADUs toward the rear of the lot, ensuring that ADU/garage windows would not line up with a neighbor's principal dwelling. But thinking about it more in context, all houses in Minneapolis are pretty close together anyways. Assuming 5' side setbacks for two neighboring principal dwellings, many existing houses are just 10' apart, if not less due to other quirks and oddities. So then why require the ADU to be set back 20' from the principal dwelling? Is it just to keep ADUs at the rear of the lot? If so, why?

My educated guess, as I never had this specific discussion with Lisa Bender or staff: people fear 'stack and pack' overcrowding, shadowing from new/taller structures (see the mansion/teardown issue), and any other issues they'll begin to grasp at (stormwater runoff! privacy! etc). By keeping a buffer on these by requiring them to be near the rear ensures most, if not all, existing permeable surface is retained and any height increases won't likely shade neighboring yards/homes too much. They also stipulate balconies cannot face interior yards to prevent privacy complaints.

I agree with you, we've got homes oftentimes <10 ft from each other, with windows facing each other (my kitchen sink window looks right into the living room of the duplex next door). Privacy is already at a minimum anyway in most lots barring really good lanscaping and thoughtful planning of window placement on adjacent homes. But people get fixed on what they have today and any potential loss, even if a very minor one in the grand scheme of things, has the ability to bring out the opposition.

[BoredAgain]

They also stipulate balconies cannot face interior yards to prevent privacy complaints.

This confuses me. If I want to build an ADU above a garage on my back alley (and I am actually considering this), then the balcony will inevitably look at someone else's house. If it faces the interior yard, then it looks at my house (and my neighbors'). If it faces the alley, then it looks at the neighbor across the alley's house. If it faces the side yard (which actually makes the most sense to me), then depending on where you stand on the balcony, it can look at any number of houses. Basically, any balcony (or window) on an alley facing ADU will inevitably look towards someone else's house.

[FISHMANPET]

Any balcony placed anywhere will face someone somewhere. We should clearly spread our houses out far enough that they're hidden behind the curvature of the earth.

[RailBaronYarr]

ADU ordinance as-written pass the full city council 10-1, Barb Johnson the lone no vote.

[RailBaronYarr]

On balconies, I agree with you BoredAgain. But the argument could easily be that an alley-facing balcony's views into SFH yards across the way will be mostly (if not entirely) blocked by their garages. A side-facing balcony could most likely peer unimpeded to an adjacent lot. Is it a big deal? No, I can already look at my neighbor's lots, and anyone on the second story of the houses beyond the alley (with a better angle than an ADU would have) can also see most of the yard. Oh well. I wouldn't be surprised if they were lenient with variances if you can show little to no impact.

[EOst]

ADU ordinance as-written pass the full city council 10-1, Barb Johnson the lone no vote.

Did she give a reason?

[xandrex]

ADU ordinance as-written pass the full city council 10-1, Barb Johnson the lone no vote.

Did she give a reason?

I think previous news coverage had her essentially arguing that because North Minneapolis has a problem with slumlords subdividing old homes illegally that we shouldn't make it legal. It was a bizarre argument, frankly.

[BoredAgain]

On balconies, I agree with you BoredAgain. But the argument could easily be that an alley-facing balcony's views into SFH yards across the way will be mostly (if not entirely) blocked by their garages. A side-facing balcony could most likely peer unimpeded to an adjacent lot. Is it a big deal? No, I can already look at my neighbor's lots, and anyone on the second story of the houses beyond the alley (with a better angle than an ADU would have) can also see most of the yard. Oh well. I wouldn't be surprised if they were lenient with variances if you can show little to no impact.

Only if my neighbor across the alley has a garage large enough to block the view (they don't). I agree that side-facing balconies make the most sense.

I just have trouble understanding the reason for blocking interior balconies. If I want the balcony on the ADU that I am building to look back towards my own house, then why can't I put it there? it seems silly.