Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus Zoning Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates accessory dwelling unit height and other zoning updates; sends ADU language to zoning committee
Summary
Commissioners spent extensive time debating accessory dwelling unit (ADU) height limits, definitions and whether licensing should be required. The commission directed the zoning committee to refine ADU language and return proposed edits to the full commission and city attorney.
The Petoskey Planning Commission conducted an extended discussion of proposed zoning code updates in Articles 7 and 9, focusing substantial time on accessory dwelling unit (ADU) height, definitions and related policy choices. No ordinance was adopted; commissioners asked the zoning committee to redraft ADU language and bring the changes back for attorney review before advancing the package to City Council.
Staff presented the supplemental regulations and noted the current code language for ADUs: an ADU "cannot exceed 1½ stories and 16 feet or the height of the principal structure, whichever is less." Commissioners and attending architects debated whether the 16‑foot midpoint limit should remain, whether an ADU built above a new or existing garage should be treated differently, and whether height should instead be a percentage (for example, 75%) of the primary structure or tied to the allowable height in the zoning district. Several commissioners argued for keeping clear, objective limits; others urged flexibility to enable functional living space above garages.
Commissioners proposed several draft approaches: keep the existing 1½‑story / 16‑foot rule; allow ADUs up to 75% of the principal structure height (with caveats for single‑story primary homes); or retain a numerical cap tied to district maximums. Architect and commission comments emphasized neighborhood character, potential for ADUs to be built as new accessory structures versus conversions, and concerns about owners building detached structures that then become short‑term rentals. One commissioner recommended ADUs on lots with a single‑story primary house should not exceed the primary house's height; another argued for defining different rules for ADUs above garages.
Commission consensus: the matter needs more work. Staff will revise two ADU height provisions discussed at the meeting — one for lots with single‑story primary houses and one for lots with multi‑story primary houses — and return the redrafted language to the zoning committee. The committee will refine wording and then forward the article to the city attorney; the full code package will be held until supporting articles are complete before any transmittal to City Council.
Public comment reflected similar concerns. Allison Patton (public commenter) urged the commission to publish redline drafts that show deleted existing language, warned that deleting some current provisions (for example, references to limits on accessory buildings, trailer‑coach rules and the '10 ADUs per year' licensing provision) could have unintended consequences, and said she wanted commissioners to proceed cautiously before allowing triplexes or fourplexes in traditional single‑family districts. "I continue to have concerns about the fact that you're working from non red line proposals," Patton said, and asked the commission to preserve cross‑references so readers can see where existing rules move.
Why it matters: ADU rules are a key tool in many cities' housing strategies. The commission's decision to refine language reflects competing priorities — increasing housing supply, preserving neighborhood character, and preventing unintended conversions to short‑term rental markets.
