Commission reopens residential‑district rules: household definition, ADUs, patios and setbacks

The Planning and Zoning Commission revisited several items in the residential districts memo, including whether to replace the term "family" with "household," whether to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs), how to treat patios and setbacks for townhouses, and how to categorize duplex and condominium forms.

The discussion matters because the commission's zoning definitions and dimensional standards shape allowable housing types, density, occupant rules and enforcement tools for the city's residential areas.

Patrick, a staff member, introduced the residential memo and asked commissioners whether the commission wanted to refine terminology (single‑family attached, twin homes, duplexes, townhouses) and whether to replace the word "family" with "household". He said the change would focus definitions on living arrangement as an economic unit rather than familial relationship and could avoid legal complications tied to the word "family." Patrick said he had drafted a candidate definition that focused on people living together as a single economic unit.

Commissioners discussed accessory dwelling units. Staff and commissioners noted ADUs can provide lower‑cost housing and more flexible living arrangements (garage apartments, above‑garage units, separate cottages), but they also flagged enforcement and code issues: converted detached garages or accessory structures can sit closer to property lines under current accessory‑structure setbacks and could be converted later into living units, potentially creating a living unit with setbacks different than the main dwelling. Paul, a staff member, described a recent overcrowding and property‑maintenance complaint that prompted enforcement action, noting that international property maintenance codes and occupancy limits still play a role in addressing unhealthy or overcrowded conditions.

On townhouse patios and setbacks, commissioners discussed a provision that requires paved patios under 12 inches to be set back 5 feet from adjacent side or rear lot lines. Commissioners noted that interior townhome units often share common space and that building setbacks for the house may already be zero on shared lot lines; they suggested the patio provision was intended as a modest allowance for low decks but should be reconciled with the townhouse building form so it does not unintentionally force interior units to cut patios back from their common areas.

Commissioners debated duplex configurations and condominium treatment for multifamily ownership. Rob recommended considering vertical duplexes (up‑and‑down) in addition to side‑by‑side layouts. Commissioners said condos and multifamily development would follow multifamily definitions but noted the need to confirm where condominiums are permitted (for example, whether they require a planned development).

Several speakers recommended staff engage developers for feedback on trends and practical outcomes. Patrick said staff will consult with developers and bring back recommended language changes; suggestions included: (1) clarifying the household definition and occupancy limits; (2) deciding whether to allow detached ADUs and, if so, whether to require minimum lot sizes or other standards; (3) aligning accessory‑structure setbacks and building setbacks to avoid conversions that evade primary‑dwelling setback rules; and (4) clarifying parking and fire/safety requirements for ADUs.

Commissioners did not adopt ordinance changes at the meeting. Staff said they will draft revisions, consider how to handle parking and occupancy rules, and include options for ADUs (for new construction vs. conversions), then return for additional review and public input.