The Sedona City Council began the process of bringing Sedona’s codes governing accessory dwelling units into conformity with recent updates to state law during its Nov. 12 meeting, with the remainder of the new state regulations set to go into effect automatically on Jan. 1.

Council unanimously approved changes to the Land Development Code that included altering the wording to refer to ADUs rather than “guest quarters”; eliminating the prohibition on kitchens in guest houses; striking the requirement that guest houses be “architecturally compatible” with the main house on a lot; and prohibiting ADUs from being used as shortterm rentals unless the owner’s primary residence is on the same lot, the owner resides there for more than six months each year and the owner has his vehicle and voter registration at that address.

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog asked about code allowances for “other forms of structures, such as a manufactured home or a tiny home.”

“If you can meet the International Residential Code building standards, you can build it,” Planning Manager Cari Meyer said.

In addition to the 962-page IRC, Sedona adopted 35 pages of amendments to the IRC, replacing a number of IRC standards with Sedona-specific requirements.

Community Development Director Steve Mertes said that manufactured homes would be eligible “as long as they’re a factory-built home that is built under the Arizona Department of Housing’s IRC compliance program, that is a structure that we would permit to be built … You were always able to build a factory-built home that is IRC compliant.”

“Except when people try to and then they get told they can’t,” Ploog said, adding, “There was an instance, if you recall, last year, where somebody was desperately trying to get approval for a manufactured home and it didn’t happen.”

Mertes suggested that property owners running into approval problems might not have chosen a home certified by Arizona Department of Housing, or that the owners could hire building inspectors at their own expense to stand by and watch their homes being built in a factory. “There are a couple of different options.”

“He didn’t have any particular home in mind,” Ploog said. “He had a lot of difficulty coming up with something that community development would approve. I don’t think we ever got there.”

“I don’t remember,” Mertes said. “Many times the issue is that the savings weren’t what they expected … We have never denied a home that was factory-built … that was IRC-compliant.”

In response to a question from Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella, Mertes estimated the smallest house that could meet all minimum code requirements would be “about 200 square feet.”

Councilwoman Melissa Dunn wanted to know how staff planned to control the number of people using each ADU or would find out that “the habitation is not meeting the desired rules.”

“We don’t get into how many people are sleeping there,” Meyer said.

“Do we have a significant number of noncompliant ADUs currently in the city?” Kinsella asked.

Meyer responded that any code enforcement cases on kitchens added after final inspection “would go away at this point. Generally that’s the main issue we run into in guesthouses.”

In discussion, council split on the merits of loosening ADU restrictions. Councilman Brian Fultz called for a turnkey program for qualified manufacturers “such that we can make it easy and less costly to get ADUs brought in on a trailer, dropped in by a crane.” Councilman Pete Furman agreed that he would support “preapproved plans that might help drive down the cost of structures,” as did Kinsella.

“I don’t think this goes far enough,” Ploog said. “We need to look at all forms of housing types and this doesn’t do that.”

“I can put a kitchen in now,” Mayor Scott Jablow said, referring to his guesthouse, but then commented, “They’re not safe if the property owner’s going to be installing them.”

Jablow added that he would support the language update “grudgingly” because the legislature had failed to adopt Sedona’s proposed ADU requirements.

“I don’t necessarily want to have somebody else’s house abutted right next to my property line,” Dunn said. “It leaves me feeling a little bit uncomfortable.”

Public Comment

Members of the public didn’t think the council’s proposed changes went far enough.

“You need to ask your staff to be more aggressive if you want to see a significant change going forward of more ADU houses built,” said Trevor Greco, a Colorado resident who owns property in Sedona. “There’s several unnecessary obstacles to build an ADU that make them basically not costeffective.” He said that the cost of a code-compliant ADU would be between $250,000 and $400,000. “As an investor, like ourselves, it really doesn’t make sense for us to build an ADU on an existing parcel. In addition, there are a lot of the smaller parcels within the city — with current setback requirements for ADUs, you’re not able to actually fit one in.”

“We have considered building an ADU on our property, but we’ve encountered obstacles and high cost, which have held us back,” Greco’s partner Marie Benedix said. “This is a shame. Sedona needs additional housing options, especially at the lower rents an ADU could afford … the biggest single change you could make would be to allow manufactured homes as ADUs in zoning districts where manufactured homes are already allowed for the main dwelling on the property. As the code currently is written, requiring a site-built ADU where the main dwelling is a manufactured home is an unnecessary hardship … Removing this obstacle could save about $150,000 on the cost of an ADU.”

“It can go a little farther,” Terry Gregory said. She recommended the city adopt smaller setback requirements. “This will allow the zoning department to work with homeowners to best site an ADU structure on a property … Sedona has a lot of unique lots … this is a big hurdle to overcome if you’re looking to place two structures on a parcel.”

“A reduction in permitting costs should strongly be considered … so that ADUs are affordable to build,” Gregory added.

“We have minimum lot sizes, we have setbacks, we have other restrictions that kind of prohibit the ability to develop a number of different plats with a tiny home on it,” Sean Smith said. “We’re going to have to address that at some point … It’s going to be hard to site those in clusters that make economic sense unless we have a land development code already set up for developers who can just come in and say, ‘Oh, hey, it’s by-right.’”

New State Law

House Bill 2720, which was signed into law on May 21, is now codified as Arizona Revised Statutes §9-461.18 and 9-500.39, which prohibit a municipality “that exercises zoning powers” from:

• Prohibiting use of an ADU as a separate rental unit
• Requiring family or financial relationships between occupants of both units
• Requiring additional parking for ADUs or in-lieu fees
• Requiring design correspondence between the structures
• Imposing more severe code restrictions on ADUs than main houses
• Setting setbacks for ADUs greater than five feet
• Requiring street improvements as a condition of approval
• Imposing restrictive covenants on ADUs

Municipalities with populations greater than 75,000 are also required to allow at least one attached and one detached ADU by right on each residential parcel.

These provisions, which were not included in the council’s LDC update, with the exception of the design conformity rule, will go into effect automatically on Jan. 1 in accordance with ARS §9-461.18(F), allowing ADUs on all residential lots in Sedona “without limits.”