A possible new housing type, already in the community but not permitted by code, was the focus of a discussion by the Tooele City Council during its work meeting on March 20.
Accessory dwelling units are a second, small dwelling on the same property as a primary residence, according to Tooele City Attorney Roger Baker. Examples include basement apartments, garage apartments, carriage houses or tiny homes.
Baker said the state’s housing gap has become a focus of discussions during the past few sessions of the state Legislature and for policy groups like the Utah League of Cities and Towns.
“The primary topic of discussion that has risen to the top of the political agendas has been the housing gap,” Baker said. “…The housing gap is simply the disparity between the amount of available housing units and the number of families needing housing.”
Baker said 40,000 families are looking for more housing than is available, including apartments.
“Most of them are young people and most of those young people are the children of Utah families,” he said. “They’re not imports. They’re homegrown.”
The Legislature has also put the responsibility of attracting housing on local municipalities, Baker claimed, by offering a variety of affordable incoming housing.
“A city’s regulatory climate can affect whether a developer chooses to build housing,” Baker said. “If our regulations are too difficult or too strict or too rigid, then it’s too hard to build housing, especially creative housing, and it won’t get built.”
While Tooele City offers a variety of affordable housing options, Baker presented accessory dwelling units as an option that is currently not allowed by the code.
Baker said accessory dwelling units already exist around the nation, state and city, but are technically prohibited by Tooele City code. One benefit of permitting the units is it would legitimize those that already exist in the city, he said.
Other benefits include allowing older couples, whose children have moved away, to “age in place,” and remain on their property, either in the accessory dwelling unit or primary residence.
“And they can stay on their property, in their neighborhood, in their church congregation, with their social networks and groups,” Baker said. “It can be a really important social tool for neighborhood health, by allowing people to age in place.”
Accessory dwelling units would also allow young couples, single people and older people to avoid being shunted into housing for their demographics, incorporating them into existing communities, according to Baker. It would also allow for a gentle density increase, as opposed to the construction of apartment buildings or other multi-family housing.
The units could also delay the loss of fields, hillsides and other greenspace to new development, according to Baker, as well as possibly reducing single-family yard irrigation.
Tooele City Council Chairman Steve Pruden said it’s unlikely the accessory dwelling units would be rampant due to restrictions on where the units could be built.
In an early draft of a proposed ordinance, accessory dwelling units would be permitted in all single-family residential zoning districts. Rules about lot coverage would apply, however, with structures only allowed to cover 35 percent of the lot, with 20-30 foot front and back setbacks and 6-12 foot side setbacks.
A 10-foot buffer would need to exist between the accessory dwelling unit and the primary residence if the unit is built externally. Baker’s proposed ordinance would require the units be no less than 300 square feet and no larger than 1,200 square feet, with a maximum of two bedrooms.
Councilman Scott Wardle expressed concern about parking with the accessory dwelling units, as only one additional on-site parking spot would need to be created for the unit. Baker said many single-family residential lots already have more parking than required due to setback depths, especially in homes with a two-car garage.
Councilman Dave McCall said he’d like to see a lot size minimum of 10,000 square feet to be part of the ordinance. Wardle also suggested creating a trial area to see how accessory dwelling units work before possibly expanding the units to the rest of the city.
The council also discussed requiring the external accessory dwelling units to be constructed on-site. Baker’s proposed ordinance would require the units to “have the same or substantially similar architectural features, materials and colors as the primary dwelling.”
The City Council only discussed the ordinance during its work meeting and no action was taken on Baker’s proposed ordinance.