Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff brief commissioners on ADU law change that will allow up to three accessory units on larger lots
Summary
Staff outlined required updates to the zoning ordinance under Arizona's HB 2928, which entitles single‑family lots to additional accessory dwelling units (ADUs); commissioners asked for more time to review whether the second detached ADU on 1‑acre lots should be deed‑restricted as affordable housing.
Coconino County planning staff briefed the Planning and Zoning Commission Wednesday on statewide changes to accessory‑dwelling‑unit rules under Arizona House Bill 2928 and how the county intends to update its zoning code.
Under HB 2928, staff explained, all single‑family residential lots will be permitted two ADUs: one attached and one detached. Properties of one acre or larger would be allowed a third ADU (one attached and two detached). "Per this state statute update, all single family residential zone properties within our county are going to be entitled to 2 accessory dwelling units," planning staff said, adding that lots of one acre or larger would be entitled to a third unit.
County staff outlined limits that the legislature set: ADU setbacks cannot be required to exceed a five‑foot side setback and ADU floor area will be allowable up to 75 percent of the primary dwelling, not to exceed 1,000 square feet. Staff said current county rules that once required deed restrictions against renting ADUs were previously removed and that the new statute requires changes to reflect the higher ADU count and revised size allowances.
One statutory option the county has, staff said, is to require that the second detached ADU on parcels one acre or larger be deed‑restricted for affordable housing (defined in HB 2928 as rental to households at or below 80% area median income). Planning staff asked commissioners whether they wanted staff to prepare an ordinance draft that includes that deed‑restriction option.
Commissioners asked for more time to consider the tradeoffs. "Having just seen this information right now, it would be premature to ask for our opinions... This is a really complex issue that I think deserves some real thought," Vice Chair Wilson said. Staff noted a statutory timeline: the county must adopt ordinance updates by the end of the calendar year; staff plans a public hearing in October and would return to the commission for recommendation before Board action.
Staff also described implementation issues — verifying income limits if the county requires deed restrictions, the permitting implications for on‑site wastewater when adding bedrooms, and a potential county program to offer pre‑designed, code‑compliant ADU plans in partnership with the City of Flagstaff to reduce design costs. Health and Human Services staff told commissioners they would assist with income eligibility verification if the county chooses the deed‑restriction option.
Commissioners agreed to continue study of the issue at future study sessions and to consider the draft ordinance during the fall hearing cycle so staff can meet the statutory deadline.
