×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.Yavapai County Zoning Ordinance Update– Section 537 (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)) DRAFT
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Review
The window for the TAG’s review of the Draft ADU Amendments will close on July 31st!
With the adoption of HB2928 by the state legislature earlier this year, the County is required to update existing Zoning Ordinance Section 537 (Guest Homes) to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on all lots or parcels zoned for residential use. Your input at this stage will help us to finalize the proposed amendments before they are presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors for adoption.
How to give input? As indicated on the green bar below, you can click anywhere on the document to comment. You do not need to register/sign in to provide comments. However, you will be asked to provide your name and email the first time you comment (if you come back at another time, you'll have to add your name and address again). Select "Summary" to select the specific section # on which you want to comment.
Loading Glossary… Commenting is closed for this document.
Stephanie Jul 30 2025 at 12:43PM on page 3
Comment
We should double check with building safety to assure our definitions match. They permit things as habitable, such as offices, that we then stipulate are not for overnight occupancy.
in reply to b j ratlief's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 4:27PM on page 1
Flood Control should be covered by stormwater and public health and safety regulations.
in reply to b j ratlief's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 4:23PM on page 3
Suggested Revision
Or how about: "Habitable area that is fully enclosed, conditioned, approved for overnight occupancy, and usable for more than six months in a year, with access to heat, plumbing, and electricity."
That would cover something like an unplumbed office or kitchen pantry that has access to a bathroom down the hall with plumbing, for example.
That would cover something like an unplumbed office or kitchen pantry that has access to a bathroom down the hall with plumbing, for example.
in reply to Becca's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 4:12PM on page 1
Comment
The state statute is only for residential zonings, but commercial zonings that allow residential usage could go by multi-family allowances if they want more dwelling units.
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 4:08PM on page 2
Comment
Having a separate Interior ADU type seems unnecessary since owner-occupied dwellings can already rent up to four rooms within the primary dwelling unit. Maybe the distinction would be more important for incorporated cities/towns working with less space in general.
Currently, we don't require any special fire separation for attached guest homes, so attached and interior are interchangeable terms.
Currently, we don't require any special fire separation for attached guest homes, so attached and interior are interchangeable terms.
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:53PM on page 3
Comment
It would be a much cleaner break to go ahead and replace the term "Guest Home" with "Accessory Dwelling Unit" throughout the current Ordinance. "Guest Home" isn't mentioned much. We would just need to reword Section 410.J to describe the allowance for ADUs and reference Section 537 for the details.
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:44PM on page 3
Comment
It seems like a fair definition on its own without the qualifier "As used in Section 537"
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:43PM on page 3
Question
Should kitchen facilities be required as long as we have a liberal definition as mentioned above?
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:33PM on page 3
"...on the same lot or parcel as the primary single-family dwelling..."
Or maybe we should add a definition for Single-Family Dwelling to be the main or primary dwelling unit to avoid any confusion.
Or maybe we should add a definition for Single-Family Dwelling to be the main or primary dwelling unit to avoid any confusion.
in reply to b j ratlief's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:27PM on page 2
The opposite is also true, some R1L neighborhoods may find it a burden to require site-built for accessories when prefab/modular units are readily available to fit in tighter spaces that may be harder to access.
The state regulations say the County can't require ADUs match exterior design of finishing materials of the primary residence. Private deed restrictions or CC&Rs could cover design requirements as well as site-built only requirements if desired in a given neighborhood.
The state regulations say the County can't require ADUs match exterior design of finishing materials of the primary residence. Private deed restrictions or CC&Rs could cover design requirements as well as site-built only requirements if desired in a given neighborhood.
in reply to b j ratlief's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:15PM on page 2
If the ADU is compliant with building codes, it shouldn't matter what its origins were. These last three items (d, e, and f) could all be covered by allowing any construction type that is compliant with the current adopted codes.
in reply to b j ratlief's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:10PM on page 2
Yes, we need a definition of Tiny Home if "tiny homes" have unique Building Code standards. If they're just meeting the same Building Code standards as any home, then we wouldn't need to use the term.
in reply to Matthew's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:05PM on page 2
Shipping container homes can currently be permitted as manufactured homes as long as they meet ADOH standards.
in reply to Becca's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 3:03PM on page 2
I think we need a definition of kitchen facilities. It seems reasonable to require separate kitchen facilities for separate dwelling units, but we don't need to require a standard stove as part of an acceptable kitchen.
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 2:57PM on page 2
Suggested Revision
How about simplifying to:
The front yard setback shall be consistent with the front yard setback required for the primary residence.
The front yard setback shall be consistent with the front yard setback required for the primary residence.
in reply to b j ratlief's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 2:55PM on page 2
The 5' for rear and side setbacks is a state requirement. Maybe we should look at making this across the board for all accessory structures to avoid confusion and complaints. Possibly just for lots under 1 acre, although people on lots over 1 acre have more leeway to self-impose a larger buffer from other lots if desired.
in reply to b j ratlief's comment
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 2:48PM on page 2
We're not able to require onsite parking, but maybe we can go by the part in subsection D (HB 2829) that says the state requirements don't supersede emergency vehicle access regulations. We could have a review where the Fire District or Public Works could comment or provide us with standard comments about road widths that wouldn't allow street parking.
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 2:39PM on page 2
Doesn't seem necessary. We don't typically have location requirements for parking spaces on single-family lots, other than requirements for side yard width if parking behind house.
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 2:35PM on page 1
Suggested Revision
I propose removing the restricted-affordable dwelling unit restriction. It would be difficult to track and only limits who can rent without any guarantee that lower rents would be charged. Other affordable housing incentive options can be considered in future after looking at upcoming housing report.
Susan H. Jul 28 2025 at 2:24PM on page 1
Suggested Revision
I propose a size limit of 1,500 sq ft max, and not larger than primary residence (deleting the 75% gross floor area as unnecessary for us to track).
Sizes will be naturally limited by the allowed lot coverage percentage and septic requirements for lots under 1 acre.
For 1 acre and larger, there could be a choice to have space for larger households (kids w/ grandkids, older parents downsizing, but not wanting to give up all their stuff, renters with families or roommates).
It may seem like a lot to double the current limit for guest homes, but those were intended for temporary guests.
The 1,500 sq ft size will accommodate a variety of options for smaller, but reasonable places to live long-term depending on the situation.
Sizes to keep in mind:
Home of My Own Models:
-1BD (2020 version) = 607 sq ft. livable
-1BD (2024 version) = 576 sq ft livable
-2BD (2020) = 787 sq ft
-2BD (2024) =1,080 sq ft
-3BD (2020) = 1,300 sq ft
-3BD (2024) = 1,613 sq. ft.
Average Park Model = 400 sq ft
Smallest typical single-wide = 787 sq ft
Average 2BD manufactured homes: 823-1,600 sq ft
Average 3BD manufactured homes: 1,200-2,000 sq ft
Tiny Homes (grey area) = 100-500 sq ft
Sizes will be naturally limited by the allowed lot coverage percentage and septic requirements for lots under 1 acre.
For 1 acre and larger, there could be a choice to have space for larger households (kids w/ grandkids, older parents downsizing, but not wanting to give up all their stuff, renters with families or roommates).
It may seem like a lot to double the current limit for guest homes, but those were intended for temporary guests.
The 1,500 sq ft size will accommodate a variety of options for smaller, but reasonable places to live long-term depending on the situation.
Sizes to keep in mind:
Home of My Own Models:
-1BD (2020 version) = 607 sq ft. livable
-1BD (2024 version) = 576 sq ft livable
-2BD (2020) = 787 sq ft
-2BD (2024) =1,080 sq ft
-3BD (2020) = 1,300 sq ft
-3BD (2024) = 1,613 sq. ft.
Average Park Model = 400 sq ft
Smallest typical single-wide = 787 sq ft
Average 2BD manufactured homes: 823-1,600 sq ft
Average 3BD manufactured homes: 1,200-2,000 sq ft
Tiny Homes (grey area) = 100-500 sq ft
Becca Jul 28 2025 at 10:56AM on page 2
Is there a Building Code definition for kitchen facilities. Does this require a range?
Becca Jul 28 2025 at 10:48AM on page 2
does street side mean exterior side or front.
Becca Jul 28 2025 at 10:45AM on page 1
Addressing Unit may want to provide specific comment on this.
Becca Jul 28 2025 at 10:25AM on page 1
75% of the gross livable floor area of the SFR or entire floor area including attached garages- current ordinance allows for 25% of habitable area only
Becca Jul 28 2025 at 10:04AM on page 1
Current code allows for all residential uses in residential zoning districts in the C1 and C2 commercial zoning. Ex. Most of Cordes lakes commercial is developed with an SFR. Will those lots be allowed an ADU?
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 1:50PM on page 3
Comment
Need to define "livable purposes."
Perhaps 'multi-night overnight occupancy' rather than livable?
Remove "usually" and require 'having access to heat, plumbing . . . . .'
Perhaps 'multi-night overnight occupancy' rather than livable?
Remove "usually" and require 'having access to heat, plumbing . . . . .'
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 12:05PM on page 3
Comment
See comment under B.1 - What about a lot or parcel which has two small livable structures, such as two 1000SF or two 900SF livable structures. I believe two of same size should be allowable if under a certain size (perhaps 1200 or 1000SF or less?).
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 12:02PM on page 2
Comment
This violets the R1L zoning to be site built. This could trigger a prop 207 as some of the higher end neighborhoods will NOT favor such an allowance. I am not in favor of this blanket allowance. Suggested adding "excepting within R1L Zoning District." bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 12:00PM on page 2
Comment
This would allow any RV/Travel trailer to be made into an 'ADU.' Not in favor of such a provision. If we are required to allow by ARS, then I would recommend additional criteria and or definition in order to tighten this allowance to very narrow parameters. bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:56AM on page 2
Comment
"Tiny Home" requires a specific definition. Does this mean anything produced which has labeled itself as a 'tiny home' - these may now be purchased off of amazon . . . . bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:53AM on page 2
Comment
I would recommend simply making ADU's required to adhere to all standard setback requirements. Allowing livable structures to encroach up to 5' of side and rear setbacks sets precedent that county should simply reduce setbacks to 5' for ALL STRUCTURES. Very difficult to explain/defend why a storage shed, carport or other structure has different criteria than livable structures. bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:50AM on page 2
Comment
Not in favor - this negates our standard district setbacks. How then can we deny a carport or shed to have the same 5' setback. NOT IN FAVOR. bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:46AM on page 2
Comment
This blanket waiver may create parking issues on our small subdivision lots and would necessitate on-street parking which would cause safety issues as many private streets are not wide enough for on-street parking AND required width to allow Emergency Vehicles (specifically fire apparatus) to quickly/safely navigate the street.
I believe we DO NEED to require criteria for additional parking, especially the tiny subdivision lots. bjr
I believe we DO NEED to require criteria for additional parking, especially the tiny subdivision lots. bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:42AM on page 1
Comment
Add "Flood Control District" to the list bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:41AM on page 1
Suggested Revision
Add an "a" between as and separately "... advertised as a separately leased long term ...."
- what about short term rentals???
- what about short term rentals???
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:38AM on page 1
Comment
if this 3rd ADU is not required by law, then drop this subsection entirely! bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:37AM on page 1
Suggested Revision
If original SFR is small, say only 1,000 then an ADU may only be 750SF. Perhaps adding a criteria if primary/main SFR is a certain size (1,000SF or less), then the ADU may meet that same size? We actually have folks doing two small homes on the same lot. bjr
b j ratlief Jul 10 2025 at 11:33AM on page 1
Question
What does this 1st sentence mean? "A property shall retain its single-family use status to the extent applicable." Either define/clarify what this is supposed to intend or delete. Seems to imply something which is not really defined. bjr
Matthew Jul 9 2025 at 3:44PM on page 2
Not sure if BOS would support repurposing storage containers for ADUs - especially if we cannot include design standards to avoid unsightly construction.
Matthew Jul 9 2025 at 3:32PM on page 2
Perhaps add that no additional driveway required.
Matthew Jul 9 2025 at 3:30PM on page 1
I would suggest not including now and taking a wait and see approach. If at conclusion of Housing Study or later on in Code update process, assuming political support, we could reconsider. I would also favor allowing this in residential zones above 25,000 sq. ft. where served by centralized sewer and outside of any environmentally constrained areas.
Matthew Jul 9 2025 at 3:21PM on page 1
Comment
I think 1,000 sq. ft. is very reasonable. However, if there was a standard MFH model in wide circulation that was a bit higher, I'd be OK with increasing. Perhaps consider adding a DS Director discretion to allow up to 25% increase in sq. ft. where certain criteria are met such as buildable area free of constraints, use of a MFH model necessitating that increase, or for any lot of an acre or more in size. Could also allow up to 1,300 sq. ft. in RCU-2, which works for most single wides.
in reply to Damian's comment
Matthew Jul 9 2025 at 3:09PM on page 1
Suggested Revision
Perhaps add language, "If a new accessory dwelling unit will not be connected to a sewer system, a permit will be required to ensure adequate size and capacity."
Matthew Jul 9 2025 at 3:01PM on page 1
Suggested Revision
Add word "Environmental" to list in A.1., as we will want to prohibit ADUs in certain constrained areas such as floodplains, steep slopes, rock outcroppings, etc.
Damian Jul 1 2025 at 1:34PM on page 1
Technical Edit
As Yavapai County is mostly on septic systems and not on a public sewer system, I feel it would be beneficial to stipulate that the ADU will be required to be compatible with the primary septic tank OR add to the primary septic via pony tank OR create a smaller, separate septic tank/system for ADU and the additional water fixture counts. Otherwise, already established septic tanks may become overloaded and ultimately fail under the extra loads.
View all
Comments
Close