Housing committee outlines draft rules for external accessory dwelling units

A Farr West housing committee agreed on a set of recommended provisions for external accessory dwelling units and asked staff to draft ordinance language reflecting those bullets for future review by the planning commission and the city.

The committee framed the changes as a parallel set of rules to the cityaccessory-building provisions rather than as a standalone special privilege. Committee members said the intent is that an EADU should not be closer, taller, or otherwise more intrusive to neighbors than a conventional accessory building and that any final ordinance must be consistent with existing setbacks and accessory-structure rules.

Key recommendations the committee discussed and instructed staff to draft into ordinance language included:

- Location and setbacks: EADUs would not be allowed in front of the primary dwelling. The committee recommended that EADUs be located behind the house footprint or, in certain lot configurations such as cul-de-sacs, sited so they are no closer to the street than the nearest rear corner of the primary dwelling. The discussion referenced a 6-foot minimum distance from an existing primary structure in some cases and a 15-foot side setback; the committee directed staff to make setback language consistent with the cityaccessory-building provisions.

- Size and form: The committee discussed a living-space floor-area threshold with a minimum of about 400 square feet and a maximum of 1,000 square feet of "livable" space (the committee indicated garage footprint would not be counted toward that livable-space cap). Members discussed single-story limitations early in the meeting but ultimately agreed to allow two-level designs provided height and setback limits are not more intrusive than the primary residence; the committee asked staff to cap livable area at 1,000 square feet and to include a clear height limit (the draft discussion included references to a 20-foot peak as a benchmark and the requirement that the accessory structure not exceed the primary building's height).

- Coverage and lot limits: The committee directed that EADUs be included within existing accessory-area limitations. The group referenced the standard that accessory coverage of the rear yard not exceed 20 percent of the rear-lot area; existing accessory structures would count toward that 20 percent allotment.

- Utilities: Committee members said sewer and culinary water connections would generally need to tie to the primary residence (members described sewer/water as not generally optional). Gas and electric meters were discussed as potentially being separate at the utility company's discretion; committee members asked staff to consult with utility providers about meter and lateral capacity and to draft precise language reflecting utility requirements and local public-works input.

- Building code, foundations and prefab units: Any unit would have to meet the citybuilding-code requirements. Prefabricated homes would be allowed only when set on approved footings and foundations and constructed to the state and local building codes.

- Permitting and process: The committee recommended that EADUs be processed as a conditional use requiring a public hearing (the committee specifically noted a conditional-use process and coordination with site-plan and building-permit reviews). Members said applicable building permits and city fees would apply through the normal process.

- Parking, access and addresses: The committee recommended on-site off-street parking on a hard-surface driving area (committee discussion said hard surface could include concrete, asphalt or similarly suitable materials). Corner lots could provide a secondary driveway access if the EADU met setback requirements. The committee discussed sharing a single street address for EADUs (noting the post office and county addressing constraints) and asked staff to check addressing and mailbox practices with city and county authorities and fire services.

Committee members emphasized that these recommendations are draft policy directions, not ordinance text, and asked staff to produce a formal draft that aligns the bullets with existing accessory-building language already in the code. One committee member said: "I'll try to draft language that makes sense, then I'll subject it to scrutiny of this group." The committee intends to route the draft to city staff (including a code review by planning staff) and then bring it back for an additional work session and a public hearing on any ordinance change.

Ending: The committee asked staff to prepare a codified draft that mirrors accessory-building rules where practical, incorporate the points above and circulate the draft to planning staff before the commission schedules a public hearing. The committee also discussed inviting city-council representatives for a joint meeting if appropriate once a draft is complete.