Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft allows ADUs across residential zones with owner-occupancy and design limits
Summary
Planners proposed permitting accessory dwelling units in all residential districts under owner-occupancy, size, parking and no‑subdivision rules; commissioners asked for clearer architectural compatibility standards and an appeal path for prefab ADUs.
Planning staff and the consultant proposed allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a permitted use in all residential zoning districts while adding development standards that limit their number, size and saleability.
The draft language presented by consultant Andy Amont requires that the owner occupy either the principal dwelling or the ADU, prohibits use as short-term rentals and bars separate sale or subdivision of the ADU from the primary parcel. “There is going to be an owner occupancy requirement that the owner lives at either the principal house on-site or the ADU, and that these are not to be used as short term rentals,” Amont said during the presentation.
Why it matters: permitting ADUs is a common tool to increase small-unit housing ("missing middle") without changing neighborhood scale, but local rules for addresses, parking, appearance and architectural compatibility will determine how many ADUs are built and how they affect neighborhoods.
Details in the draft and follow-up discussion - Addressing and taxing: staff said address assignment is typically coordinated with the post office and assessing office; for tax and utilities the property remains a single taxing entity. - Sale and subdivision: draft language (section 7.B, as discussed) would prohibit subdividing or otherwise severing ownership of the ADU from the main lot. - Design controls: the draft requires setbacks, height limits, maximum size, parking, and that ADUs be architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling. Commissioners asked whether prefab or modular ADUs would be allowed; consultant and staff said prefabricated ADUs are acceptable if they meet setbacks and appearance rules. - Appeals and review: commissioners suggested a review path so that the zoning administrator’s administrative compatibility determination could be appealed to the planning commission.
Points of uncertainty or items for revision: commissioners asked staff to clarify how architectural compatibility will be judged (the draft lists facade treatments and scaling elements used in the Riverfront Mixed Use district), and to consider loosening some compatibility requirements to allow modern prefab ADUs if they meet simple design checks. Staff committed to bring compatibility language from the site standards into residential ADU provisions or provide a check‑off list for approval.
Ending: staff will fold ADU rules into Article 2 definitions and Article 3 district mapping in later drafts and draft an appeal process for design disputes.
